I 



A 

DEFENCE 



PROTESTANT BIBLE, 



BIBLE SOCIETIES, 

AGAINST THE CHARGE RAISED AGAINST IT BY THE REV. DR. 
RYDER, PRESIDENT OF THE COLLEGE OF JESUITS AT 
GEORGETOWN, D. C, DURING A COURSE OF 
THEOLOGICAL LECTURES, DELIVERED 
IN MARCH AND APRIL, 1844, 

IN THE CITY OF WASHINGTON : 

THAT IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WHOLE OF THE WRITTEN WORD OF 
GOD— OR SACRED SCRIPTURE— BY 139 CHAPTERS, AND, THAT 
CONSEaUENTLY IT IS A BOOK WHICH ALL CATHOLICS 
DETEST AJ^D ABHOR. 



B Y A K R O A T E E S . 



" He expounded to them in all the Scriptures." — Luke xxiv. 27. 



NEW-YORK: ^^{a-^^,. 
LEAVITT, TROW, & CO., 194 BROADWAY 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 
WILLIAM M. MORRISON. 

1844. 

/ 



.T6 



TO THE READER. 



The author wishes to apprize the reader that 
he claims no credit for the little work which is here 
presented, excepting fur the industry and labor he 
has bestowed in its preparation. It may be consid- 
ered a summary of the testimony and arguments of 
the most approved and most ancient writers on the 
canon of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
rather than his own production. So few have the 
time and opportunity to examine the history of the 
canon of Scripture, that the author thought such a 
summary — especially on such an occasion— might 
be an acceptable offering to the Christian com- 
munity. 

Should Dr. Ryder think that I have done bins 
injustice, I will take back, with pleasure, anything 
1 have represented him to have said. I would not 
intentionally misrepresent him ; and it would give 
me pleasure to learn that I had misunderstood him. 
But, alas ! the witnesses are so many that I fear 
there was no misapprehension. 



TO THE REV. DR. RYDER. 



Reverend Sir :— 

I HAVE listened to several of your lectures, with mingled feel- 
ings of pleasure and pain. I was pleased with your eloquence 
and ingenuity, and with your easy, yet earnest and persuasive 
address. But I was startled and shocked with occasional ex- 
pressions, some of which I will, by and by, bring to your recol- 
lection ; and permit me, sir, respectfully to say, that, instead of 
acting the part of a just judge, who, anxious for a righteous 
verdict, suras up, concisely and impartially, the evidence on 
both sides — you played too closely the part of a lawyer, labor- 
ing for victory, rather than for truth. And I must add, that, in 
my view, your mode of treating what you were pleased to call 
the Protestant religion, was disingenuous ; and that your argu- 
ments were extremely fallacious. 

Towards the Bible Society you employed language expres- 
sive of disgust and disdain ; and of the Bible published by that 
Society you spoke in unmeasured terms of reprobation. You 
pronounced it a book which Catholics (meaning the sect of 
which you are a member) detest and abhor. ''^ Sir, this is a 
monstrous expression! You did not contend that this book 
contained no part of the w^ord of God. You alleged, indeed, 
that Protestants had corrupted and adulterated it ; but your 
principal objection was, that it did not contain the whole of the 
Sacred Scriptures by one hundred and thirty-nine chapters. I 



6 



flatter myself, sir, that you would find it a difficult task to prove 
the whole of yours to be the inspired word of God. Had five 
righteous persons been found in Sodom, that wicked city would 
have been saved from the wrath of God, which was poured upon 
it in a flood of fire. And surely one would think that as many 
chapters, were there no more, of the word of God, should save a 
book from the sweeping maledictions of his dependent creatures. 

Although I cannot suppose you are ignorant of the reasons 
why the Bible Society prefer the Bible as they have published 
it ; yet, for the sake of those who have not made themselves 
acquainted with its history, and as you kept all this out of the 
view of your audience, I must take the liberty to set them forth 
in this address, that the pubhc may be the better able to judge, 
whether or not it is a book meriting the detestation and abhor- 
rence of persons professing to be the disciples of the Son of 
God. 

But, before I proceed, I will apprize you that I am not a 
Frotestaiit in the sense in which the term is usually understood ; 
that is, one who protests solely against the Pope and the Church 
of Rome — I protest no more against the Pope and his Church, 
as such, than against any other. Yet, in one sense — a far 
more comprehensive one — I am a Protestant. I protest most 
solemnly against ERROR, wherever found ; whether amongst 
Papists, or Protestants, or Infidels ; in religion, or science, or 
politics ; in church government or state government ; against 
arrogance in professors of Christianity, pride, vainglory, and 
the spirit of exclusiveness ; against unfairness, injustice, and un- 
charitableness; against superstition, against wilful ignorance, the 
most common and most damning sin of the age; against tyranny 
and oppression ; but, above all, against tyranny over the mind, — 
that tyranny which fetters the intellect, steeps the very will in 
cowardice till it shrinks appalled from the enjoyment of the 
vivifying light of reason — God's greatest, best gift to the natu- 
ral man — and even shudders at its own existence, although it 
is all that makes him superior to the brute after this present 



7 



life — a tyranny which stifles every rising resolution, saving that 
only of a blind and abject submission to the dictation of a set of 
men whose boundless ambition and love of power seek to sub- 
due the w^orld to their dominion. Compared with this tyranny, 
the bloodiest laws of the most cruel despot that ever lived — 
dungeons, chains, racks, and fires, are nothing. These can only 
affect the mortal body, — but that bhghts forever the undying 
soul. Sir, there is a tyranny like this, — and it has tyrannized 
in Christendom for sixteen hundred years. Against it I not only 
protest, but, to adopt the language of a great patriot and friend 
of liberty, "I have sworn, upon the altar of my God, eternal hos- 
tility against every species of tyranny over the mind of man." 

In referring to your observations and arguments, as I lay no 
claim to infallibility, I may not always represent you to your 
satisfaction. If so, I shall be much pleased to be corrected. 
As I can but regret that you entertain the opinions which I con- 
trovert, I shall be very happy to find that I have misunderstood 
you. You told us that you had compared one of those Bibles 
published by the Bible Society with an old Bible at the George- 
tov/n College, printed in fourteen hundred and seventy odd, and 
you found that that old Bible contained one hundred and thirty- 
nine chapters more of Sacred Scripture than the Bible Society's 
Bible. And hence you would have us to infer — as your old 
Bible was printed three hundred and seventy years before the 
other — that it must be the more perfect, and that those hundred 
and thirty-nine chapters must be the word of God. I acknow- 
ledge you did not rely solely on this. You affirmed that they 
had been held by the whole Christian Church to be Holy Scrip- 
ture, from the days of the Apostles till Luther started up in the 
sixteenth century, and made the great discovery that they w^ere 
apocryphal. 

Is this really so ? Have the Bible Society, in deed and in 
truth, excluded from their Bible one hundred and thirty-nine 
chapters of the Word of God ? ■ Have all Protestants, with 
Luther at their head, refused to admit into their canon of Sacred 



8 



Scripture one hundred and thirty-nine chapters, which Christ 
and his Apostles intended that his Church should receive, in all 
future time, as the written word of God ? Truly, this is an in- 
quiry worthy of serious and patient investigation. Without far- 
ther delay, then, in the spirit of candor and the love of truth, 
let us proceed to the work. 

When you told us of your comparison of the two Bibles, 
how happened it, sir, that you omitted to tell us of the fact, of 
which I cannot suppose you were ignorant, that when that old 
Bible of yours was printed, there were in existence, in manu- 
script, other Bibles, or copies of Scripture, which had been 
used by certain Christian Churches for many centuries, and 
which did not contain a single chapter of those one hundred 
and thirty-nine for which you contend so valiantly ? I know 
this argument is not worth any thing ; but, it were as good 
in the one case as in the other : and I think that, as a lover of 
truth, you were bound to add this fact, for the sake of such of 
your hearers (and there may have been such) as did not know- 
but that this old printed Bible was the oldest in the world, and 
that every Bible that had ever been used by Christians in any 
part of the w^orld was precisely like your old printed one. 

In the first place, then, let us see, if we can, what those hun- 
dred and thirty-nine chapters are, w4iich constitute the great dif- 
ference between the two Bibles ; and the want of which renders 
that published by the Bible Society so extremely odious in the 
sight of your sect. 

I have not a copy of the old edition of 1470 odd — but your 
English edition — the Douay — a copy of which is before me, 
may answer my purpose as well. With it, I will now compare 
a copy of the Bible as published by the Bible Societies of both 
this country and England, arranging the books as they stand in 
each Bible in separate columns, w^ith the number of chapters 
admitted set opposite to the name of each book. And 1 will 
here take occasion to say, that I will confine myself, first, to the 
question of the canon of Scripture ; after which I will take a 



9 



comparative view of the respective merits of the Bible as adopt- 
ed by Luther, in the early part of the sixteenth century, and as it 
was adopted towards the latter part of the same century by the 
Council of Trent ; and this will consist, chiefly, in a history of 
the Bible in general. I will then pass on to your objection to 
the indiscriminate use of the Bible, to the subjects of private 
interpretation, the authority of the Church in the interpretation 
of Scripture, &c. 

BOOKS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT, 



As DECLARED CANONICAL BY 

THE Council of Trent. 

Names of the Books. No. of Chap. 

1. Genesis, - - - 50 

2. Exodus, - - - 40 

3. Leviticus, - - 27 

4. Numbers, - - - 36 

5. Deuteronomy, - - 34 

6. Josue, - - - 24 

7. Judges, - - - 21 

8. Ruth, - - - - 4 

9. 1 Kings, alias 1 Samuel, 31 

10. 2 Kings, ahas 2 Samuel, 24 

11. 3 Kings, - - - 22 

12. 4 Kings, - - - 25 

13. 1 Paralipomenon, } pq 
alias 1 Chronicles, 5 

14. 2 Paralipomenon, > 
alias 2 Chronicles, 5 

15. 1 Esdras, - - - 10 

16. 2 Esdras, alias Nehemias, 13 

17. Tobias, - - - 14 

18. Judith, - - - 16 

19. Esther, - - - 16 

20. Job, - - - - 42 

21. Psalms, - - - 150 

22. Proverbs, - - - 31 

23. Ecclesiastes - - 12 

24. Canticles of Canticles, 8 

25. Wisdom, - - - 19 

26. Ecclesiasticus, - - 51 

27. Tsaias, - - - 66 

28. Jeremias, - . _ 52 

29. Lamentations, - - 5 

30. Baruch, - _ _ q 

31. Ezechiel, - - - 48 



As declared Canonical by 
ALL Protestant Churches. 



Names of the Books. No. of Chap. 

1. Genesis, - - - 50 

2. Exodus, _ - - 40 

3. Leviticus, - - - 27 

4. Numbers, - - - 36 

5. Deuteronomy, - - 34 

6. Joshua, - - - 24 

7. Judges, - - - 21 

8. Ruth, - - - - 4 

9. 1 Samuel, - - - 31 

10. 2 Samuel, - - - 24 

11. 1 Kins-s, - - - 22 

12. 2 Kings, - - - 25 

13. 1 Chronicles, - - 29 

14. 2 Chronicles, - - 36 

15. Ezra, - - - - 10 

16. Nehemiah, - - - 13 



17. Esther, - - - 10 

18. Job, - - - - 42 

19. Psalms, - - - 150 

20. Proverbs, - - - .31 

21. Ecclesiastes, - - 12 

22. The Song of Solomon, 8 



23. Isaiah, - - - 66 

24. Jeremiah, - - - 52 

25. Lamentations, - - 5 

26. Ezekiel, - - - 48 





10 




33. Daniel, 


14 


27. Daniel, 


12 


33. Osee. - 


14 


28. Hosea, 


14 


34. Joel, ' - 


3 


29. .Toel, - 


3 


35. Amos, 


9 


30. Amos, 


9 


36. Abdias, 


1 


31. Obadiah, - 


1 


37. Jonas, 


4 


32. Jonah, 


4 


38. Micheas, - 


7 


33. Micah, 


7 


39. Nahum, 

40. Habacuc, - 


3 


34. Nahum, 


3 


3 


35. Habakkuk, - 


3 


41, Sophonius, - 


3 


36. Zephaniah, 


3 


42. Aggeus, 


2 


37. Haggai, - 


2 


43. Zacharias, - 


14 


38. Zechariah, - 


14 


44. Malachias, 


4 


39. Malachi, - 


4 


45. 1 Machabees, 


16 






46. 2 Machabees, 


15 
1074 




929 



As it respects the New Testament, there is no difference in 
the number of books or chapters it is, therefore, unnecessary to 
compare them. 

You will perceive, sir, from the foregoing statement, that 
the difference is even greater than you said. That instead of 
one hundred and thirty-nine, your Bible has one hundred and 
forty-five chapters more than the Protestant. I make it out 
thus : — The seven apocryphal books — Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the two Machabees — contain one 
hundred and thirty-seven chapters. To which add the two last 
chapters of Daniel, in your Bible, and we have your one hun- 
dred and thirty-nine. But there are six Chapters of the Book 
of Esther, as you have it, still to be added — which make up the 
one hundred and forty-five. One might think this enough, in 
all conscience. But, alas ! truth compels me to acknowledge, 
the difference is greater still. A dreadful book, truly, is this 
Protestant Bible ! I find that the last chapter of Esther in 
the Protestant canon, has but three verses, to which, in your 
Douay Bible, are added ten others. These are no part of the 
six entire chapters mentioned above. Again, — in your Douay 
Bible I find, in the third chapter of Daniel, what is called the 
Song of the three Children, consisting of sixty-seven verses. 



11 



beginning with the twenty-fourth, and ending with the ninetieth, 
also not found in the Protestant canon. 

Now, if the incorporation of those chapters and verses with 
the Jewish canon in your Bible renders the Protestant Bible 
worthy to be detested and abhorred, how much more detestable 
and loathsome must it have been had your Church seen fit to 
adopt, with the genuine and authentic books of the New Testa- 
ment, the books of the Shepherd, and Hermas, Nichodemus, the 
vision of Peter, and the like 7 

Having settled the first question — that is, what are those 
chapters, &c., which constitute the difference between the two 
Bibles, and which in your estimation proves so ruinous to that 
adopted by Luther and all the Protestant Churches, — I will pro- 
ceed to the next inquiry, which is : Had they, or had they 
not, sufficient reason for rejecting the chapters in question? 

It should be borne in mind, that it is more important to the 
Protestant, who receives the Bible as his sole rule of faith and 
practice, that it should be the pure word of God, than to the 
Papist, who does not regard it in that light, and can press into 
his service auxiliaries which he esteems of equal, if not superior, 
authority. Had you considered this, I cannot suppose you 
would have been so sweeping in your denunciation of the Pro- 
testant Bible. 

Thus impressed, it was quite natural for Luther and the rest 
who had just released themselves by a mighty effort from the 
thraldom of a despotic priesthood, and for the first time felt their 
true responsibility, — the responsibility of free agents; a re- 
sponsibihty to God alone,— to seek to embody, as their religious 
code, such writings only as possessed all the characteristics of 
sacred Scripture. And such, sir, let me ask you to suppose, are 
my own feehngs and desire. 

It is understood then, so far as the books of the New Testa- 
ment are concerned, that we are agreed ; but, as it respects 
those of the Old, where shall we find the evidence of their 
genuineness and authenticity ? Who shall direct us with un- 



12 



erring skill to those very Scriptures which the great Messiah 
declares in the gospel, testify of him ; the searching of which 
he and his apostles commended ; which Peter declares were 
spoken by holy men of God, inspired by the Holy Ghost; w^hich 
Paul says Timothy had know^n from his infancy, and which 
could instruct him to salvation — were profitable to teach, to 
reprove, to correct, to instruct in righteousness, and to perfect ? 
Who, I say, shall point us to these ? 

Sir, I anticipate your answer. You will direct me to the 
Church ; the infallible, holy, Roman Catholic Church, the 
mother and the mistress of all other churches. She, you will 
tell me, is the fountain of all truth, and of all religious know- 
ledge. She has examined the question, and has settled it. 

I cannot stop here to controvert those positions ; but I will, 
if life and health permit, at no distant day. At present, I will 
only reply, that I cannot admit such evidence. Your Church 
is one of the parties disputant. But, supposing it to be admit- 
ted, why, then, according to all the rules of evidence, — and 
they are founded on reason and common sense, — we are bound 
to receive also the testimony of the other party. And what 
would be the issue ? You would adduce the decrees of a few 
councils, which you call your church, and they will produce in 
bar, the decisions of all the churches of the various Protestant 
sects, which will outnumber all the councils that have been held 
in Christendom, from that of Nice in the days of Constantine 
to the famous one of Trent in the sixteenth century ; and, if I 
mistake not, you attach consequence to numbers. But, sir, 
if you will show me the evidence on which your councils based 
their decrees, I will pay it due respect and give it a fair ex- 
amination ; otherwise, I must be excused for believing there 
was none, and consequently for totally disregarding them. 

And now I will proceed to the examination of such evidence 
as is fairly admissible, and as I find accessible ; and this evi- 
dence is written history, and even that must be sifted and 



13 



weighed, and compared, and proved by the standard of right 
reason. 

Knowing, as we must, that even the most authentic written 
history is not always free from uncertainty in every particular, 
I can give but little credit to iinvjritten evidence, which professes 
to come from beyon'd that cloud of obscurity w^hich lies between 
us and the remote ages, and which the earliest and most astute 
historians strove in vain to penetrate. With people destitute of 
the art of writing and every other mode of recording events, 
much care may have been observed in the transmission of oc- 
currences from generation to generation ; and yet w^e have abun- 
dant reason to believe, from daily experience, and researches 
among the North American Indians, that no story, no narrative 
of incidents, can, for any great length of time, pass through 
a multitude of mouths pure and unchanged. When, therefore, 
w^e are presented with oral statements of facts represented to 
have transpired many centuries ago, among a people not desti- 
tute of learning and literature, we may well suspect some sin- 
ister motive in those who w^ould draw so largely upon our 
credulity as seriously to urge their reception. The Scrip- 
tures, stamped with the seal of the great Messiah, and far- 
ther attested by his Apostles and Evangelists, were mani- 
festly the Jewish Scriptures — as you yourself admitted in your 
observations concerning the passage beginning, " Search the 
Scriptures," &c. You said, truly, that then there were no 
other sacred Scriptures ; and, I may add, these were the Scrip- 
tures which Jesus opened and expounded to his disciples imme- 
diately after his resurrection. He and all his Apostles were 
Jews ; and, as such, there were no other writings which they 
could dignify with the pre-eminent and emphatic appellation 
of " The Scriptures.^' To the Jews, says Paul, were com- 
mitted the oracles— or words — of God; and some of the 
Christian Fathers style them the librarians of the Christians. 
But few of the books of these Scriptures are specified by the 
Saviour or his Evangelists. He speaks of the law and the 



14 



Prophets, and the Psalms ; of Moses and the Prophets ; of the 
Scriptures often. From which it is manifest, to my mind, that he 
alluded to a code, or compilation, as a canon among the Jews, well 
known to those to whom he spoke, as the Scripture, or the Scrip- 
tures. Had it been otherwise — had these Scriptures not been col- 
lected into an approved and well-known canon, but were only to 
be found in detached and unapproved books, it is not reasonable,! 
think, to suppose that Christ and his Apostles would have re- 
ferred to them by this aggregate title of " the Scripture.''^ It 
is unnecessary, how^ever, to employ arguments to prove that 
which is, I believe, admitted by all biblical critics. Should 
this position be denied, I anticipate no difficulty in establish- 
ing it. 

I will consider it, then, conceded, that, at and before the 
time of the Messiah, there was a Jewish Scripture canon, ap- 
proved as genuine and authentic, and well known to the Jew^- 
ish people; and that it is to the same that reference is made in 
the Christian Scriptures of the New^ Testament, under the name 
of the Scripture, or, the Scriptures. 

Now, w^here is the fountain-head of knoV;7ledge in respect 
of this matter ; from which, as from a well, we may draw the 
truth ? Where but the records of the Jews ? Will you answ^er 
again. The Church ? I reply, not so. For the Church can 
only derive its knowledge irom the same source, which is 
equally accessible to all ; and if you allege that it possesses an 
intuitive faculty w^heieby it knows better than the Jew^s, then 
I can only say, such an idea is as absurd as to suppose that I 
know better what is in your keeping than you do yourself. 

It is to the Jews, then, and to them only, that we must apply 
for correct information as to the particular books that composed 
their Scripture canon. And so thought the learned Christians 
in the earliest ages of the Church, as, by and by, I will show. 

Before I proceed to cite authorities to prove what books 
most probably composed the Jew^ish canon of Scripture, I will 
state, briefly, what I understand to be the history of the forma- 
tion of that canon. 



15 



It is generally admitted, by both Jews and Christians, that 
■when Ezra (or Esdras), a man of sacerdotal descent, and highly 
esteemed among the Jews for his wisdom, piety, and many 
virtues, was permitted by Artaxerxes, between four and five 
hundred years before Christ, to return with his friends from 
Babylon to Jerusalem, for the purpose of instructing and reform- 
ing the people in religion and morals, he collected the scattered 
books of Scripture into one code, which was approved and es- 
tablished by the grand council, or Sanhedrim, as their canon of 
Scripture. Whether this was in one volume, or more, is not 
known. It is believed, however, by many learned men, to have 
been in three parts : the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagio- 
graphy (or Holy Writings). Previously to this, it would seem, 
that their canon consisted of the Law (the five books of 
Moses) only. The Samaritans acknowledged no other. It 
also appears that these Scriptures were transcribed by Esdras 
(Ezra) from the ancient Hebrew, the knowledge of which was 
nearly or quite lost, into the Chaldaic character. The ancient 
copy of the Law, which, it appears, had long been lost, and 
was found in the days of King Josiah in a heap of rubbish in 
the Temple, by Hilkiah the High Priest, is supposed to have 
been destroyed when the temple was burnt by the Babylonians ; 
though some of the Jews believe it was securely deposited in a 
subterranean chamber of the temple, whence it will be exhumed 
at the coming of the Messiah. It is also thought, and with 
good reason, that somewhere between fifty and two hundred 
years after the formation of the canon by Ezra, several books 
were added to it by the High Priest, Simon the Just. Since 
v;hich time, there seems to be no reason to believe that any addi- 
tion to it has been made. The original Hebrew books from which 
Esdras compiled his canon, and which he transcribed in the 
Chaldsean characters, have long been lost — and few, if any, 
traces of them were extant at the commencement of the Chris- 
tian era. 

The learned Dr. Prideaux says,—" All that Esdras did in 



16 



this matter, was — 1. He corrected errors that had crept into the 
copies of the Sacred Writings through neghgence, or mistake 
of the transcribers. 2. He collected all the books of which 
the Holy Scriptures then consisted, disposed them in their 
proper order, and settled the canon of Scripture for his time. 
3. He added throughout the books of his edition, what appeared 
necessary for illustrating, connecting, or completing them ; 
w^herein he w^as assisted by the same Spirit by w^hich they were 
at first written. 4. He changed the old names of several 
places now grown obsolete. 5. He wrote out the whole in the 
Chaldee character. 6. Whether he added the vowel points, is 
a harder question." This passage is quoted by Calmet as good 
authority, — who says (art. Esdras) : " Some have asserted that 
he (Esdras) was chiefly concerned in revising and compiling 
most of the books of Scripture. He corrected them, made 
some little changes in them, arranged them in order, and put 
them into their present condition. He had great zeal and 
knowledge, and very carefully collected all the old documents 
of his nation ; also, having the spirit of prophecy, it is very 
probable that he did take pains in collecting the Sacred 
Writings, and composing the present canon. It is probable he 
wrote both books of the Chronicles." Some think that the 
book of Ecclesiasticus affords sufficient evidence that the canon 
of the sacred books was completed when that tract was com- 
posed ; for that author, in chap, xlix., having mentioned among 
the famous men and sacred w^riters, Isaiah. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
adds the twelve minor prophets, w^ho follow^ those three in the 
Jewish canon ; and from this circumstance we may infer, that 
the prophecies of these twelve were alread}' collected and di- 
gested into one body." " Dupin " (an author, as you well know, 
greatly respected, and referred to by every WTiter on Eccle- 
siastical and Biblical history who has followed him) " says, 
that Nehemiah assisted largely in compiling this canon ; for 
proof of which he refers to the letter from the Jews of Jerusa- 
lem written to the Jews of Egypt, mentioned in the beginning 



17 



of the second book of Maccabees, in which it is said that Ne- 
hemiah had collected the books of the Kings, of the Prophets, 
and of David. It is said that this canon was then approved by 
the grand Sanhedrim, the great Synagogue, or Council of 
Seventy, and published by its authority. It is, however, says 
Dupin, more apparent, that about that time the number of the 
sacred books was fixed among the Jews by a canon, which the 
whole Jewish nation received and followed ; so that they looked 
no longer upon such books as sacred and divinely inspired, 
which were not contained in this canon. The canon of the 
whole Hebrew Bible seems, says Kennicott,to have been closed 
by Malachi, the latest of the Jewish prophets, about fifty years 
after Ezra had collected together all the sacred books w^hich 
had been composed before and during his time. Prideaux sup- 
poses the canon was closed by Simon the Just, about one hun- 
dred and fifty years after Malachi. But, as his opinion is 
founded merely on a few proper names at the end of two gene- 
alogies, (1 Chron. iii. 19, and Neh. xii. 22,) which few names 
might very easily be added by a transcriber afterwards, it is 
more probable, as Kennicott thinks, that the canon w-as finished 
by the last of the prophets, about four hundred years before 
Christ. The books of the Old Testament having been settled 
by Ezra, Nehemiah, Haggai, Zephaniah, and Malachi, were 
probably left perfect, completely repaired after the injuries of 
time during the captivity, and corrected from such errors as 
might have crept in for want of care in the transcribers." 
{Rees^s Encyclo^oedia, art. Bible.) 

Again, I quote from the same. (Art. Canon) : 
" The canon of the Old Testament is much more easily 
settled than that of the New ; because whatever almost may 
be objected against the authority of the present canon of the 
former, either in behalf of any books which are not in it, or 
against any that are, may be answered by this single consider- 
ation, viz., that we receive the same and no other books than 

uch as w^ere received by the Jewish Church in the time of our 

2 



18 



Saviour, as is evident from the copies of them procured by the 
Christians, and catalogues they made of them soon after the 
destruction of Jerusalem. Some difference, however, has oc- 
curred in the mode of their arrangement. Hody says, (deBib. 
Text. Orig. L. ii. c. 9. p. 190,) that the division of the sacred 
books into the Law, the Prophets, and Chetubbim, or Hagio- 
graphia, is of the highest antiquity. The Jews are said, by 
some, but as others think without sufficient evidence, to have 
ascribed it to the prophet Ezra. Although the Jewish people 
have been very uniform in the number of sacred books received 
by them, they have varied, and have been somewhat arbitrary, 
in the general denominations and divisions of them. Isaac 
Vossius suspects that the above-mentioned division was an in- 
vention of Aquila, who, in the second century, made a new ver- 
sion of the Jewish Scriptures into Greek; w'hereas, the old 
partition was that of the Law, the Prophecies, and Psalms. 
Dr. Lardner observes, that no traces of it appear in the Scrip- 
tures of the Old or New Testament, nor in Josephus, nor in 
Phiio, nor in any Christian writers before Epiphanius and 
Jerome, near the end of the fourth century. Some, indeed, 
have supposed that this tripartite division is referred to in Luke 
xxiv. 44 ; but other learned and judicious persons, as Leusden 
and Wolfius, are of opinion that, by the ' Psalms,' in this 
place, we are not to understand the metrical books, or any 
other general division of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
but the book of Psalms. J. Fr, Buddeus, {Hist. Eccles. Vet. 
Test. Tom. posterior, p. 828, 4to. HalcB Magdeb. 1719,) cited 
by Lardner, says, it is uncertain when and by whom this par- 
tition was first used ; and he also shows the impropriety and in- 
convenience of it, as generally used by the Jews. It does not 
appear that any notice is taken of it, or regard had to it, in 
Melito, Origen, Cyril, or Athanasius. Among those who have 
used this partition, there seem sto have been a great variety of 
opinions concerning the books that should be called ^ Hagio- 



19 



grapba.' The term has nothing in it appropriating and dis- 
tinctive, and this may have been the ground of that difference 
of opinion among those who have used it, concerning the books 
that should be placed in this class. Every other partition of 
the sacred books of the Old Testament, v^ith which we are ac- 
quainted, seems, in the judgment of Dr. Lardner, to be prefer- 
able to this of the Law, Prophets, and Hagiographa. Those 
denominations which we sometimes meet with in the New 
Testament, the ^ Law,' or the ^ Prophets,' denoting in general 
the ancient sacred writings, are very just. The dichotomy, 
^ the Law and the Prophets,' so common in the New Testa- 
ment, is very proper. The tripartite division in Luke xxiv., 
and Josephus, ' the Law, the Prophets, and Psalms or Hymns,' 
is also very proper. Another partition is that used by Cyril of 
Jerusalem, viz., legal, historical, metrical, and prophetical, 
"which seems to have been regarded by Athanasius, Origen, and 
Melito, in their catalogues, appears to Lardner and others the 
most proper and commodious." 

The foregoing is designed to show that, at and before the 
time of Christ, the Jews had a canon of Scripture, approved 
and well known ; and that it was to this same canon, whatever 
it was, and to it alone, that Christ and the New Testament 
writers refer, whenever they use the terms, " the Scripture,^^ or 
the Scriptures.^'' And, as a necessary consequence, it seems 
to me, it must follow that this canon only should be received 
by his followers as the Old Testament. 

I will now endeavor to show what were 

The Books that composed the Jewish Canon of Scripture. 

I will premise here, that the modern Jews contend that they 
never had but the one canon since the carrying away to Baby- 
lon, and that it is the same now in use among them. It has 
never been changed, increased, or diminished, since the days of 
Esdras (Ezra), who lived more than four hundred years before 
Christ. The contrary of this allegation of the Jews, so far at least 
as it respects the number and titles of the books composing the 



20 



canon, never has, and, I presume, never can be proved. In- 
deed, I am not aware that the attempt has ever been made. 

Now, the first author whom I shall call to my aid, is one for 
whop, I doubt not, you entertain the highest respect ; a man of 
great learning and research, and a member of your sect. I al- 
lude to Dom. Calmet. In his Great Dictionary, art. Canon, he 
says : " The Hebrews admit twenty-two books into their canon, 
or at most twenty-four, supposing Ruth to be separated from 
the Judges, and the Lamentations from Jeremiah. They be- 
lieve, generally, that the canon of Scripture was not closed, 
nor the number of inspired books fixed, till Ezra, with the con- 
sent of the general council of the nation, collected all the books 
which were acknowledged as sacred and inspired, composed 
one body of them, and regulated what we call the second 
canon of Scripture ; since w^hich time the Jews have not ad- 
mitted any book as canonical : this w^e learn from Josephus. 
Doctor Prideaux, with great appearance of reason, says, it is 
more likely that the two books of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, 
and Esther, as well as Malachi, were afterwards added, in the 
time of Simon the Just, and that it was not till then that the 
Jewish canon of the Holy Scriptures was fully completed." (See 
Connect., &c., part i. book 5.) 

Let us now see what support the great Jewish historian, 
Josephus, affords to what has been advanced. In his work, 
Contr. Jlpion, 1. i. c. 8, (I quote from Whiston's translation, 
vol. ii. p. 47 6j) he says: " For we have not an innumerable 
multitude of books among us, disagreeing from and contradict- 
ing one another, but only twenty-two books, which contain the 
records of all the past times, which are justly believed to be 
divine ; and of them, five belong to Moses, which contain his 
laws and the traditions of the origin of mankind till his death. 
This interval of time was little short of three thousand yearSo 
But as to the time from the death of Moses till the reign of 
Artaxerxes, king of Persia, who reigned after Xerxes, the 
Prophets who were after Moses wrote down what was done 



21 



in their time in thirteen books. The remaining four books 
contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human 
life. It is true, our history hath been written since Artaxerxes, 
very particularly, but hath not been esteemed of the like au- 
thority with the former by our forefathers, because there hath , 
not been an exact succession of prophets since that time ; and 
how firmly we have given credit to these books of our own 
nation, is evident by what we do ; for, during so many ages as 
have already passed, no one hath been so bold as either to add 
any thing to them, to take any thing from them, or to make any 
change in them ; but it is become natural to all Jews, imme- 
diately and from their very birth, to esteem these books to con- 
tain divine doctrines, and to persist in them, and, if occasion 
be, willingly to die for them." 

And what are those twenty-two books, so venerated by the 
Jews, that they would " willingly die for themV^ Let us turn 
again to Calmet. Under the article " Bible," he says : " We give 
this name to our collection of sacred writings, and call it The 
Bible, or The Book, by way of eminence and distinction. The 
Hebrews call it Mikra, Lesson, Lecture, or Scripture. They 
acknowledge only twenty-two books as canonical, which they 
place in the following order : — 

"ORDER OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE, ACCORD- 
ING TO THE HEBREWS. 
"the law. 

" 1. Genesis, in Hebrew, Bereschith ; in the beginning. 
" 2. Exodus, in Hebrew, Veelle Sehemoth ; these are the 
names. 

" 3. Leviticus, in Hebrew, Vaiikra ; and he called. 
" 4. Numbers, in Hebrew, Bammidbar ; in the desert. 
" 5. Deuteronomy, in Hebrew, Elle haddebarim ; these are 
the words. 

" the first prophets. 

" 6. Joshua. 



22 



*'7. Judges, 

" 8. Samuel, 1 and 2, of which they make hut one hook. 
" 9. KingSj 1 and 2. Of these they make hut one hook, 

" THE LATTER PROPHETS. 

" 10. Isaiah. 

" 11. Jeremiah, and Baruch.] 
" 12. Ezekiel. 

" 13. The twelve smaller Prophets make but one book, viz. 
Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habak- 
kuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. 

"the sacred books, or hagiographa. 
" 14. The Psalms. These they divide into five hooks. 
" 15. The Proverbs. 
" 16. Job. 

" 17. Solomon's Song. The Jews place the Lamentations 
and the hook of Ruth, after the Song of Solomon. 
" 18. Ecclesiastes. 
" 19. Esther. 
" 20. Daniel. 
" 21. Ezra and Nehemiah. 
" 22. The two books of Chronicles. 

" The books of the Old Testament were written for the most 
part in Hebrew. Some places of Esdras and Daniel are written 
in Chaldee.^' 

In this Catalogue, as given by Calmet,it is remarkable that, 
with the exception of Baruch, we do not find one of those books 
which contain your one hundred and thirty-nine chapters, the ab- 
sence of which renders the Protestant Bible — in your estimation 
— an object of detestation and ahhorrence. As the matter stands, 
the Jewish Bible is, in your view, as worthy of detestation and 
ahhorrence, less the six chapters of Baruch, as the Protestant 
Bible is. 

But see what this same author writes concerning this same 
book of Baruch. (See art. Baruch.) " Baruch, book of, in 



23 



the Apocrypha, is not extant in Hebrew, but in Greek only : 
the Jews, among whom it is a standing rule to receive no books 
into the canon hut what are written in their language, exclude 
Baruch. Jerome " (the most learned, perhaps, of the Latin 
Fathers ) " speaks of this book in a manner which shows that 
he did not esteem it canonical. He says, Prcef, in Exposit. 
Jerern., he did not think proper to comment on Baruch, (which 
in the LXX is joined with Jeremiah,) because it was not read 
among the Hebrews, and contains an epistle, which falsely bears 
the name of Jeremiah. Elsewhere, he says he did not translate 
it, as he had done Jeremiah, because it was not in Hebrew, and the 
Jews did not adrnit it into the canon. We do not find Baruch 
in the ancient catalogues of the Scriptures, cited by the Fathers 
and Councils. Protestants, and even some Catholic writers, ex- 
clude it from the canonical books. The Council of Trent admit- 
ted it, with others of the apocryphal writings." 

I have italicized a few words of the foregoing quotation from 
Dom. Calmet, the more particularly to direct your attention to 
them. And now, sir, what do you think of your book of Ba- 
ruch — which is six of the hundred and thirty-nine chapters, for 
want of which Catholics detest and abhor the Protestant Bible ? 
And hence we learn why Calmet inserted it in the catalogue 
given above, — it being found in the Greek version ascribed to 
the Seventy ; but I know not how to excuse him for coupling it 
with Jeremiah, under the head of ^' Books of the Bible according 
to the Hebrews." He gives the Catalogue of the Sacred 
Writings, as received by the Jews, from Origen, Tom. 1. Edit. 
Huet." It differs from the other in the omission of Baruch, and 
in the arrangement of some of the books, and it joins to Jere- 
miah and Lamentations the Epistle to the Captives. Now, 
Origen, you know, lived in the second and third centuries, and 
was one of the most learned of the fathers ; and however your 
Church may condemn certain of his opinions, you cannot but 
respect his testimony in respect of historical facts. 



24 



In your lecture the 26th April, I understood you to say that 
the genuineness and authenticity of the one hundred and thirty- 
nine chapters in question, are as well established as that of any 
of the others ; that you have the same authority for receiving 
them as Sacred Scripture that you have for receiving the books 
of Genesis, Exodus, or any of those that are undisputed ; but I 
did not understand you to cite any authority but that of Pope 
Innocent the First, who, I think you said, acknowledged these 
chapters to be Sacred Scripture. Now, although this may be 
enough for yourself, and for all who beheve in the supremacy of 
Popes, rely upon it, sir, it is destitute of weight elsewhere. 
Perhaps you added, you have the testimony of some of the 
Fathers on your side. I will not deny this. But I am inclined 
to think your strongest support is afforded by writers compara- 
tively modern ; and that support, if I am not mistaken, is rather 
conjecture than argument and testimony to facts. Let us again 
hear what Calmet says, — art. Canon. He is an author I like 
to quote, because he w^as a learned man, and of your own per- 
suasion. 

^' Genebrard and Serranus," says he, " are of opinion, that 
after Ezra, the great synagogue admitted into their canon books 
which were composed after this time, such as Wisdom, Eccle- 
siasticus, Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees ; nevertheless, their 
authority was not equal to that of the old ones. But this is not 
w^ithout difficulty ; for, first, the books of Tobit and Judith 
might be written before the captivity ; secondly, if the Jews 
thought them inspired, why did they not receive them into the 
canon as of equal authority with the rest ? 

" It may be, perhaps, suspected, that the Jews, who retained 
the Hebrew tongue, might exclude these books from the canon, 
because they were not written in Hebrew, which is the sacred 
language : but they received Daniel and Ezra, wherein are 
several large passages written in Chaldee : now Ecclesiasticus, 
Tobit, Judith, and at least the first book of Maccabees, were 



25 



originally written in this language, yet they do not appear to 
have been received into the canon.'^ 

This passage, from a man so learned and so well acquainted 
with oriental literature, and, withal, a Benedictine, is very 
valuable ; because it must go far with persons of your persua- 
sion, (Protestants are satisfied without it,) towards convincing 
them of these important facts, viz. : that the books of Wisdom, 
Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, Maccabees, etc., were never 
received by the Jews as canonical — that they were not origin- 
ally written in Hebrew — and that although, as a general rule, 
the Jews admitted nothing into their canon that was not ori- 
ginally written in Hebrew, these books were not rejected simply 
for this reason, but because they did not believe them to be in- 
spired ; and farther, that those learned Frenchmen of the 
sixteenth century (Genebrard and Serranus) w^ere of opinion 
that the authority of these books, if they were received by the 
Jews, "was not equal to that of the old ones." It is manifest 
that had the Jews believed them to be inspired, they would 
have received them into the canon as of equal authority with the 
rest, which they never did ; and from the fact that they never 
did receive them at all into their canon, it is equally clear they 
never believed them to be the word of God. 

But, as you appeal to History, and to the Fathers, to them, 
then, let us go. Their authority in deciding matters of Chris- 
tian doctrine I cannot admit ; but their historical relations I 
respect as I do those of other authentic historians. Some of 
them, it is true, were men of sense and learning ; but many of 
them, though sincere and devout men, were credulous and 
superstitious ; and not a few of them rather weak minded. 
Even some of the most celebrated are not entirely free from the 
charge of credulity and superstition. Witness, for instance, the 
silly story told by St. Cyprian, of the miracle attending the 
eucharist on certain occasions ; — I allude to that to which you 
adverted in one of your lectures, where he says, a certain wo- 
man, taking some of the consecrated bread home in a box, was 



26 



astonished, on opening it, at seeing a flame of fire issue there- 
from ; whilst that taken home by another person, in his hand, 
was found, on opening it, to be nothing but ashes. Cyprian pos- 
sibly believed those stories as they were related to him, but if 
so, he was evidently imposed on, and thus evinced great weak- 
ness ; though the whole affair, like many similar ones, looks 
vastly like an invention to frighten into subservience, or to lead 
captive, silly women. The celebrated Justin Martyr, too, dis- 
played great ignorance, though he had been a Platonic philoso- 
pher, in speaking of the fable of the phoenix as a historical fact* 
Such things warn us to receive the writings of those men with 
caution and allowance ; especially when they speak of the au- 
thority and attributes of the Church ; for Christianity had not 
become predominant in the Roman Empire when, stimulated 
by the desire to rule, and dazzled with the anticipation of the 
splendor and luxuries of this world that follow in the train of 
power, the Clergy, forgetting or disregarding their vocation as 
servants of one whose kingdom is not of this world, and as 
ministers of the 'people, sought with diligence to make the peo- 
ple minister to them ; arrogated to themselves that power and 
supremacy which is inherent in the people, whether in church 
or state, and which had hitherto been exercised by the several 
churches, (i. e.the congregations,') and exerted all their energies 
in the establishment of a privileged and elevated order, a splen- 
did hierarchy with a perpetual succession, which should domi- 
nate over the universal Church, and in time over the whole 
world. Some of the Fathers, however, in spite of these bril- 
liant and flattering prospects — and though in the full exerdse 
of an assumed authority, of which they seemed scarcely con- 
scious — were adorned with many Christian virtues ; were 
learned and intelligent, and zealous and indefatigable in the 
cause of their great master and of truth. To this class, chiefly, 
I will now turn my attention ; but will ask leave to do so in 
part, in a quotation from Rees's Encyclopedia, (art. Canon,) 



27 



which contains the principal facts which I aim to establish by 
reference to the Fathers. 

" The first Catalogue of the books of the Old Testament re- 
corded by any Christian writer is that of Melito, bishop of Sar- 
dis, in Lydia, who is placed by Cave at the year 170. He 
travelled into Palestine on purpose to learn the number of these 
books. Eusebius has preserved his Catalogue, and he says, that 
it is a Catalogue of the Scriptures of the Old Testament uni- 
versally acknowledged. It contains the books received by the 
Jews into their canon ; but he does not mention the book of 
Esther. The order in which he 'enumerates them is as follows, 
viz.: five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of the 
Kings, two books of Chronicles, the Psalms of David, the Pro- 
verbs of Solomon, the Ecclesiastes, the Canticles, Job, the 
books of the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, the Twelve Prophets in 
one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. Origen, about A. D. 230, 
has a Catalogue, in which the books occur in the following or- 
der, viz., five books of Moses, Joshua, Judges with Ruth, one 
book ; the first and second book of the Kings, called by them 
Samuel, and reckoned one book ; the third and fourth of the 
Kings, also one book ; the first and second of the Remains, in 
one book ; Esdras, first and second, in one book, called by them 
Ezra; the book of the Psalms ; Solomon's Proverbs, Ecclesias- 
tes, Canticles, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Job, Esther. 
The book of the Twelve Prophets is wanting in our copies. 
Athanasius, about A. D. 326, in his Festal Epistle, and also in the 
Synopsis Scripturee, ascribed to him, enumerates the books in this 
order, viz., first, the five books ofMoses, then the historical books, 
from Joshua to Ezra ; then the books in verse, the Psalms, Prov- 
erbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Job ; lastly, the Prophets in one 
book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. Cyril of Jerusa- 
lem, about 348, has a Catalogue, in which he uses divisions. 
The first are the five books of Moses ; then the historical books ; 
after them, five books in verse. Job, the Psalms, the Proverbs, 
Ecclesiastes, the Canticles ; and last of all, five prophetical books,^ 



28 



which are the Twelve Prophets, in one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, 
Ezekiel, Daniel. Epiphanius, about 368, has three Catalogues ; 
in two of which all the books of the Old Testament are enumer- 
ated from Genesis to Ezra or Esther, without any partitions. 
But in the other he divides them, observing, that the books of 
Scripture are comprised in four Pentateuchs, and two over and 
above the first Pentateuch, or that which is most properly so, con- 
taining the five books of the Law : the next contains the five books 
in verse, the book of Job, the Psalter, the Proverbs of Solomon, 
the Ecclesiastes, the Canticles ; the third Pentateuch contains 
those called Graphica, by othess Hagiographa, which are the 
book of Joshua, the book of Judges with Ruth, the first and 
second of the Remains, the first and second of the Kingdoms, 
and the third and fourth of the Kingdoms : the fourth Penta- 
teuch consists of the Twelve Prophets, in one book, Isaiah, Jer- 
emiah, Ezekiel, Daniel : the two others over and above these, 
are the two books of Ezra, reckoned one book, and Esther. 
This Catalogue is followed by John Damascenus, about the 
year 830. Jerome, A. D. 392, enumerates twenty -two books of 
the old law, according to the number of the Hebrew letters; 
viz., five books of Moses, viz.. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, 
Numbers, and Deuteronomy ; eight of the Prophets, viz., Josh- 
ua, Judges with Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, 
and the Twelve Prophets ; and nine of the Hagiographa, viz., 
Job, David or the Psalms, Solomon comprehending three books, 
i. e.. Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs; Daniel, 
Chronicles, Ezra, and Esther. Hence we see that St. Jerome's 
canon of the Old Testament was that of the Jews. All other 
books not received by them, he calls apocryphal. 

" In the Catalogue of Rufinus, about the year 397, the 
books of the Old Testament are enumerated in the following 
order, viz. : in the first place are the five books of Moses, Gen- 
esis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, after these are 
Joshua and Judges, together with Ruth. Next the four books 
of the Kingdoms, which the Hebrews reckon two ; the book of 



29 

the Remains, which is called the Chronicles, and two books of 
Ezra, which by them are reckoned one, and Esther. The Pro- 
phets are Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ; and besides, 
one book of the Twelve Prophets : Job also, and the Psalms of 
David. Solomon has left three books to the Churches, the 
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. In the third, 
otherwise called the sixth. Council of Carthage, assembled in 
397, it was ordained, that nothing beside the canonical Scrip- 
tures should be read in the Church under the name of Divine 
Scriptures ; and that the canonical Scriptures are these, Gen- 
esis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judg- 
es, Ruth, four books of the Kingdoms, two books ot the Re- 
mains, Job, David's Psalter, five books of Solomon, the books 
of the Twelve Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, To- 
bit, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, and two books of the Mac- 
cabees. Upon this canon it has been remarked, that this Coun- 
cil was not general, but provincial, or national ; that the bish- 
ops assembled do not show much learning or judgment, when 
they reckon five books of Solomon ; that the decree of this 
Council, by placing among canonical Scriptures Tobit, Judith, 
and the two books of the Maccabees, contradicts antiquity, or 
ought to be explained with a distinction ; the word canonical 
being used laxly, so as to comprehend not only those books 
which are admitted as the rule of faith, but those also which are 
esteemed useful, and may be publicly read for the edification of 
the people ; and that this Council mentions only two books of 
Ezra, meaning, probably, the book of Ezra properly so called, 
and the book of Nehemiah ; but nothing is said of the other 
two, sometimes called the third and fourth books of Ezra. 

" According to Augustine, (De Doctrin. Christ., L. 2, c. 8, 
tom. 3. p. 1, Bened.,) about 397, the entire canon of Scripture is 
the following books, which he thus enumerates. There are five 
of Moses, that is, Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deute- 
ronomy ; one book of Joshua ; one of Judges ; one small book 
called Ruth, which seems rather to belong to the beginning of the 



30 



Kingdoms ; then the four books of the Kingdoms, and two of the 
Remains, not following one another, but proceeding, as it were, 
parallel on the side of each other. These are historical books, 
which contain a succession of times in the order of events. 
There are others which do not observe the order of time, and are 
unconnected together, as Job, Tobit, Esther, and Judith, and the 
two books of the Maccabees, and the two books of Esdras ; 
which last do more observe the order of a regular succession of 
things, after that contained in the Kingdoms and Remains. 
Next are the Prophets ; among which is one book of the Psalms 
of David, and three of Solomon, the Proverbs, the Song of 
Sono-s, and Ecclesiastes. For those two books. Wisdom and Ec- 
clesasticus, are called Solomon's for no other reason but be- 
cause they have a resemblance with his writings ; for it is a 
very general opinion, that they were written by Jesus, the son of 
Sirach ; which books, however, since they are admitted into au- 
thority, are to be reckoned among prophetical books. The rest 
are the books of those who are properly called prophets : as the 
several books of the Twelve Prophets, which, being joined to- 
gether and never separated, are reckoned one book. The names 
of which prophets are these : Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jo- 
nah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zecha- 
riah, Malachi. Afte them are the four Prophets of larger 
volumes : Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel. In these forty-four 
books is comprised all the authority of the Old Testament. 

" From this extract it appears, that there was not then any 
canon of Scripture settled by any authority, that was univer- 
ally acknowledged by Christians. Though there might be de- 
crees of Councils relating to this matter, they were not esteemed 
decisive and of authority, every where and by all. But still 
private and inquisitive Christians had a right to use their own 
judgment concerning this point. Although Augustine says, 
that Wisdom and Ecclesiastieus ought to be reckoned among 
prophetical books, &c., yet Rufinus and Jerome, who were a 
little older, must be allowed to bear a right testimony, and to 



4 



31 



declare truly what was the sentiment of most Christian Churches, 
when they say, that ' the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, 
Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, were indeed allowed to be 
publicly read ; but that, nevertheless, they were not canonical, 
and that no doctrine of religion may be proved by their au- 
thority.' From other passages in the works of Augustine, it 
appears that he acknowledged only three books of Solomon to 
be his ; the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Canticles j and that the 
Jews have no more of his writings in their canon. With re- 
gard to the books of Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus, he observes, 
that though they were esteemed by some, on account of some 
resemblance of style and design, to be Solomon's, the learned 
are satisfied they are not his ; and that they were chiefly re- 
spected by W^estern Christians. He particularly owns that the 
book of Judith was not in the Jewish canon. Augustine, in- 
deed, often quotes these books of the Old Testament which we 
now generally call Apocryphal, as Wisdom, Tobit, Ecclesiasticus, 
and the Maccabees ; but he frequently uses expressions which 
show they were not esteemed the books of the Prophets, or of 
equal authority with the books of the Jewish canon. In his 
'Retractions' (L. i. c. 20) he owns his mistake in quoting the 
book of Ecclesiasticus as prophetical, w^hen it was not certain 
that it was written by a prophet. He also says, in another 
place, (L. ii. c. 20,) that he had not any proof of some pro- 
positions which he had advanced, but from the book of Wis- 
dom, which the Jews did not receive as of canonical authority. 
In another work, w^ritten about the year 420, he says, ' The 
Jews do not receive the Scripture of the Maccabees as they do 
the Law, and the Prophets, and the Psalms, to which our Lord 
bears testimony, Luke xxiv.; so thai,u})on the whole, Augustine 
seems not to differ from Jerome and Rufinus.' ' In the Sti- 
chometry of Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, who 
flourished in the beginning of the ninth century, we have a 
catalogue of the books, both of the Old and New Testament. 
The divine Scriptures mentioned in this w^ork, as received by 



32 



the Church, and reckoned^ canonical, are. Genesis, Exodus, 
Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, and Ruth, 
the first and second books of the Kingdoms, the third and 
fourth of the Kingdoms, the first and second of the Remains, 
Ezra, first and second, the book of Psalms, the Proverbs of Solo- 
mon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job, Isaiah the prophet, 
Jeremiah the prophet, Baruch, Ezekiel, Daniel, and the Twelve 
Prophets. All together, it is said, the books of the Old Testa- 
ment are twenty -two. The contradicted books are, three books 
of the Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of 
Jesus the son of Sirach, Psalms and Odes of Solomon, Esther, 
Judith, Susanna, and Tobit, called also Tobias. The insertion 
of the book of Baruch among the sacred Scriptures of the Old 
Testament, is the only circumstance in which this Catalogue 
differs from that of the Jews; but this and the omission of 
Esther, which was not in all ancient Catalogues, may be reck- 
oned things of no great consequence.' '' 

The catalogues of Augustin and of the Council of Carthage 
having been given in the foregoing quotation, that you may see 
I do not consider these to be the sole ground on which your 
Church rests her pretensions to the authenticity of the books in 
question, I wull cite another passage from the same work, under 
the article "Apocryphal,'' as follows, viz. : " The first Catalogue 
in which the books of Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Tobit, Judith, and 
the two Maccabees were admitted as canonical, and as having 
the same authority, is that of the third Council of Carthage, 
A. D. 397, which confirms the decree of the Council of Hippo, 
A. D. 393, in which these books were received into the canon. 
St. Augustine, according to the authority of the African Church, 
reckoned all these books as canonical. Pope Innocent L, on 
behalf of the Church of Rome, places the same books in the 
canon of the Old Testament, as did also Pope Gelasius in the 
Council held A. D. 494; and, moreover, the decree of Pope 
Eugenius, and the canon of the Council of Trent, agree with 
the canon of the Council of Carthage, and with the decree of 



33 



Pope Innocent, and rank the above mentioned books among 
those of the Old Testament." 

And what does it prove? Why, simply this: that the 
Councils of Hippo and Carthage were ignorant of the Jewish 
Catalogue, and seeing these books in the translated copies of the 
old codices used by them, they took it for granted they belonged 
to the Jewish canon. Doubtless they were unacquainted with 
Hebrew, and probably, also, with Greek ; for even Augustin 
himself acknowledges that he was not a Hebrew or Greek 
scholar, and very few, I imagine, of the African bishops were 
better scholars than Augustin. This Council of Carthage con- 
sisted of only forty-four persons ; and before they go on to 
declare what .books are canonical, they ordain " that^ nothing 
beside the Canonical Scriptures be read in the Church under the 
name of Divine Scriptures." Now, who can entertain the idea 
for a moment, that these men would, in the face of the Jewish 
canon, have inserted those books as canonical, after that ordi- 
nance ? I cannot accuse them of such an open violation of 
truth, and shameless disregard of Christian duty. I am fully 
convinced, that they knew nothing of the Jewish canon, from 
any examination of the Hebrew, or consultation of the w^orks of 
the few learned men who had investigated the subject, and 
whose writings were in Greek and not very easy to procure. 
As to Pope Innocent the First, it is by no means unlikely that 
he knew nothing of any canon of Scripture, but w^hat he found 
in the Latin translations of the day; and although contempo- 
rary with Jerome, who w^as long employed in collating and re- 
vising copies of the Latin versions, and translating the Hebrew 
and Greek Scriptures, that learned and laborious father was 
absent so much from Rome, prosecuting his labours in the land 
of Judea, that, considering too the time w^iich must have been 
consumed in the completion of his works, and that Innocent died 
before Jerome, it were not surprising if that Pope never was 
acquainted with the result of the researches of the latter respect- 
ing the canon of Jewish Scripture. If, however he were 

3 



34 



informed on this subject, his arbitrary and despotic disposition 
could easily enough have found a reason for his decree, if it 
were only to testify his supremacy over the Western Churches, 
or by causing a manifestation of dissatisfaction with conscien- 
tious persons, to find new subjects on whom to wreak his wrath- 
ful spirit. And as it respects the Council of Trent, although, 
in former days. Councils had often reversed each other's decrees, 
it was important, on this occasion, to be consistent ; and, al- 
though they very well knew that the books we have now under 
consideration never did belong to the Jewish canon, and there- 
fore ought to form no part of the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
ment as a Christian rule of faith, not to have decreed them 
canonical then would have been conceding too much to Protest- 
ants, who had already rejected them. 

Before I dismiss this part of the subject, I will quote a pas- 
sage concerning this Council of Carthage from S, Basnage, 
Ann. 397, n. ix. I give Lardner's translation : This Council, 
he observes, " placeth among canonical Scriptures Tobit, Judith, 
and the two books of the Maccabees. Which decree either 
contradicts antiquity, or, as we rather think, ought to be ex- 
plained with a distinction. What was the opinion of the ancients 
concerning the canon of the Old Testament, may be learned 
from Melito in Eusebe, the Festal Epistle of Athanasius, from 
Epiphanius, and Cyril of Jerusalem ; according to whom the 
books above named were not canonical. The word canonical^ 
therefore, may be supposed to be used here loosely, so as to 
comprehend not only those books which are admitted as the 
rule of faith, but those also which are esteemed useful, and may 
be publicly read for the edification of the people." 

I have already remarked that I pay no respect to the decrees 
of Councils, excepting when fairly delegated by the lay members 
of the Churches, and then in respect of matters of discipline only. 
I regard them otherwise as self-constituted bodies, deriving no 
authority from the Christian charter, and as usurpers of the 
rights of the people and, as such, their decrees are destitute of 



35 



binding authority. But, as one is just as good as another, I 
will give an extract from Lardner, vol. 10, pp. 291, 292, show- 
ing what was decreed at the Council of Laodicea, held many 
years before the Council of Carthage referred to particularly 
above : " The two last canons of the Council of Laodicea, in 
Lydia, or Phrygia Pacatiana, are to this purpose: *That pri- 
vate Psalms ought not to be read (or said) in the Church, nor 
any books not canonical, but only the canonical books of the 
Old and New Testaments. The books of the Old Testament, 
which ought to be read, are these : 1. The Genesis (generation) 
of the World, 2. The Exodus out of Egypt. 3. Leviticus. 
4. Numbers. 5. Deuteronomy. 6. Joshua the son of Nun. 
7. Judges with Ruth. 8. Esther. 9. The first and second 
book of the Kingdoms, 10. The third and fourth book of the 
Kingdoms. 11. The first and second book of the Remains (or 
Chronicles). 12. The first and second book of Esdras. 13. 
The book of 150 Psalms. 14. The Proverbs of Solomon. 15. 
The Ecclesiastes. 16. The Song of Songs. 17. Job. 18. 
The Twelve Prophets. 19. Esaias. 20. Jeremiah and Ba- 
ruch, the Lamentations and the Epistles. 21. Ezekiel. 22. 
Daniel.' " 

On this Lardner observes, "1. In this catalogue are omit- 
ted, for the Old Testament, the books of Judith, Tobit, Wis- 
dom, Ecclesiasticus, the Maccabees, and in the New the Reve- 
lation. 2. The time of this Council is not certain. Some have 
placed it before the Council of Nice. Others, between the 
Council of Antioch, held in 341, and the Council of Constanti- 
nople, in 381. Some in 365. Others in 363, which seems as 
likely as any. 

" 3. Though the time of this Council cannot be exactly 
settled, I think it cannot be denied that there was a Council held 
at Laodicea in the fourth century, which made many regula- 
tions concerning Ecclesiastical discipline. This may be reck- 
oned evident from the notice taken of it in the sixth general 
Council at Constantinople, and other Councils : and from its 



36 



being* particularly mentioned by Theodoret, (Theod. in Coloss, 
cap. 3, T. 3, p. 355,) who wrote within sixty or seventy years 
after the supposed time of it." " The last canon about Scrip- 
ture, is generally received as genuine, though it may not be 
quite so unquestioned as the other preceding canons." If it be 
objected that this Council was not oecumenical, (or general,) 
and .therefore is not of full authority, — I reply, that the same 
objection applies as to those of Hippo, Carthage, and some 
others, which have declared the books we now have under ex- 
amination to be canonical. 

Let us now look a little into that great work of Dr. Na- 
thaniel Lardner, "The Credibility of the Gospel History," 
which has gained for him, from all sects, the name of the fair 
and impartial. 

1 find, on comparison, that the Catalogues contamed in the 
quotation from Rees's Encyclopedia are the same as those cited 
by him. I shall, therefore, not repeat them, but will only note 
the references, so that, if you please, you may examine the 
originals with the greater facility. 

The first Catalogue is that of Melito, bishop of Sard is, who 
died, according to Lardner, about the year 177, and according 
to Cave about 170. He made a journey to Palestine for the 
purpose of ascertaining what were the genuine and authentic 
Scriptures. His Catalogue of the books of the Old Testament 
does not contain a single one of those which are composed of 
your 139 chapters. Lardner's reference is : Jlj). Eiiseb. H. E. 
L. 4. c. 26. 

Origen's Catalogue (A. D. 230) contains none of those chap- 
ters. Reference : Jp. Euseh. ib. L. 6,c. 25. 

Athanasius, A. D. 326, omits them entirely. Jlth. T. 1, p. 
961, 962. Before enumerating the books of his Catalogue he 
observes (T. 1, p. 961, E. 962, A.): "Forasmuch as some 
have taken in hand to set forth writings called apocryphal, and 
to join them with the divinely inspired Scriptures, of which we 
are fully assured, as they delivered them to the fathers, who 



37 



were eye-witnesses and ministers of the word j it has seemed 
good to me also, with the advice of some true brethren, and 
having learned it from the beginning, to set forth in order these 
canonical books, which have been delivered down to us, and 
believed to be divine Scripture ; that every one who has been 
deceived may condemn those who have deceived him ; and that 
he who remains uncorrupted may have the satisfaction to be re- 
minded of what he is persuaded of The books of the Old Tes- 
tament, then, are all of them in number two and twenty. For 
so many are the letters of the Hebrew alphabet said to be. The 
names and oiderof each one are thus," &c. (Then follow^s the 
Catalogue already given above.) After adding to his Catalogue 
of books of the Old Testament the books of the New, he con- 
tinues (p. 962, D.) : " These are fountains of salvation, that 
he who thirsts may be satisfied with the oracles contained in 
them. In these alone the doctrine of rehgion is taught. Let 
no man add to them, or take any thing from them. Of these 
our Lord spake, when he put the Sadducees to shame, saying : 
Ye do err ; not knowing the Scriptures. And he exhorted the 
Jews : Search the Scriptures ; for these are they which testify 
of me. However, for the sake of greater accuracy I add as fol- 
lows (p. 963, A.) : that there are other books beside these, 
without; not canonical, indeed, but ordained by the fathers to 
be read to (or by) those who are nearly come over to us, and 
are desirous to be instructed in the doctrine of religion ; — The 
Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom ofSirach, and Esther, Judith, 
Tobias; the Doctrine of the Apostles, as it is called, and 
the Shepherd." 

On this passage, Lardner makes the following judicious re* 
mark : " The reader sees what books of the Old Testament are 
reckoned by this writer canonical ; and how many others be- 
sides are mentioned by him, as out of the canon, yet allowed to 
be read. And I would add here, in regard to the other works 
of Athanasius in general ; that therein the Wisdom of Solomon 
is often quoted, Sirach or Ecclesiasiicus but seldom ; and the 



38 

books of Maccabees scarce at all : which last, as we see, are also 
quite omitted in this Catalogue." (See Lardner, vol. 8, pp. 
224 to 230.) 

The Synopsis of Sacred Scripture, usually joined with the 
works of Athanasius, written probably in his day, and by some 
ascribed to him, is to the same effect. Lardner remarks (vol. 
8, p. 243, 244, 245) : " The author begins his Synopsis, say- 
ing {Synops. p. 126, A.) : All the Scripture of us Christians 
is divinely inspired : and it contains not an infinite, but rather 
a determined number of canonical books. Those of the Old 
Testament are these." Having mentioned their names the 
same as before, and put down the first sentence in each book, 
he says (p. 128. D. E.) : " The canonical books of the Old Tes- 
tament all together are twenty-two, according to the number of 
Hebrew letters. But beside these there are other books of the 
same Old Testament, not canonical, but read only (and that es- 
pecially) by or to Catechumens." The books here mentioned 
are the Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the son of 
Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit. But presently after he adds 
(p. 129, A.) : " Some say that Esther is reckoned canonical 
by the Hebrews, as also Ruth, being joined with the books of 
Judges. But Esther is a distinct book." Again, in another 
place (pp. 201, 202) he says: "There are also divers other 
books, both of the Old and the New Testament, some contra- 
dicted, others apocryphal. The contradicted books of the Old 
Testament, spoken of before, are the Wisdom of Solomon, the 
Wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach, and Esther, and Judith, and 
Tobit, with which also are reckoned four books of the Macca- 
bees, the History of the Ptolemies, the Psalms, and the Ode of 
Solomon, and Susanna. These are the contradicted books of 
the Old Testament. The apocryphal books of the Old Testa- 
ment are these : Enoch, the Patriarchs, the Prayer of Joseph, 
the Testament of Moses, the Assumption of Moses, Abraham, 
Eldad and Modad, and the pseudepigraphal books of Elias the 
Prophet, Zephania the Prophet, Zacharias the father of John, 



39 



Baruch, Amhacum, Ezekiel, and Daniel.^' " All these are thus 
set down for the instruction of men. But they are perversely 
writ, and spurious, and to be rejected, and none of these are to 
be received with the rest, or reckoned useful." 

From these extracts we learn that, so far as this ancient 
writer was acquainted, all the books containing your one hun- 
dred and thirty-nine chapters — without which the whole Jew^ish 
canon (according to your statement) is detested and abhorred by 
papists — were in his day rejected by all well-informed Chris- 
tians. It is apparent that this writer did not derive his informa- 
tion from the Jews, or from inspection of their ancient records. 
He must have obtained it, then, from the writings of the learned 
who had lived before his day — such as Origen and Melito — or 
from the prevalent opinion of the most learned Christians con- 
temporary with himself, derived from like sources, and fromthe 
traditions of the people generally. 

Lardner, who examined this Synopsis with great care, says, 
in conclusion, — " Upon the whole, I think this writer, whoever 
he is, probably of Alexandria, or near it, received no books of 
the Old Testament as of authority, beside those of the Jewish 
canon. And for the New Testament, he received all those 
which we now receive, and no more." 

Vol. 8, p. 267, he thus translates a quotation from Cyril 
of Jerusalem, A. D. 348 (Cat. iv. c. 35) : "Read the Divine 
Scriptures, the two and twenty books of the Old Testament, 

which were translated by the seventy-two interpreters 

Read those two and twenty books, and have nothing to do with 
apocryphal writings. These, and these only do you carefully 
meditate upon, which we securely read in the Church. The 
Apostles and ancient bishops, governors of the Church, who 
have delivered these to us, were wiser and holier than thou. 
As a son of the Church, therefore, transgress not those bounds. 
Meditate upon the books of the Old Testament, which, as has 
been already said, are two and twenty, and if you are desirous 
to learn, fix them in your memory, as I enumerate them, one by 



40 



one." His Catalogue being already given above, it is unneces- 
sary to repeat it here. Suffice it to say, it agrees with the Jew- 
ish canon, excepting in the insertion of Baruch and the Epistle. 
Then, after giving the books of the New Testament precisely as 
we have them, he adds : " As for any beside these, let them be 
all held in the second, or no rank. And whatever books are 
not read in the Churches, those neither do thou read, in private, 
as thou hast heard." Hence it is manifest, the books enumer- 
ated and recommended by him were the only ones received by 
and read in the Churches with which he was acquainted; and not 
only so, but it seems very clear, from his language, that he was 
not aware that any other books were read in any of the Churches. 
But I do not mean to argue from this, that those books only 
were received and read in all the Churches. The mass of 
Christians in those days were extremely ignorant, especially in 
the fourth century. Millions were reclaimed — as it were in a 
day — from the grossest idolatry ; and intense interest, as well 
as curiosity w^as awakened, and all who could read sought with 
eagerness whatever might give them insight of that new religion 
which dispensed with sacrifices and the gods, and was espoused 
with so much ardor by the Emperors themselves. Hundreds — 
nay, thousands of new Churches w'ere established, over a vast 
number of which pastors must necessarily be appointed, w^ho had 
but just been initiated themselves ; and had, perhaps, received 
little instruction excepting in the performance of that strange 
mixture of Jewish and heathenish rites and ceremonies w^hich, 
even before this period, had cast a shade over that beautiful 
simplicity which adorned and dignified the Churches of the 
Apostolic age. 

In regard to what Epiphanius (A. D. 368) says, respecting 
the books of the Old Testament, I trust I may be excused if I 
repeat a little that is said in the long quotation from Rees's En- 
cyclopedia. The testimony of this father is so valuable, that a 
repetition of a small portion of it should give no offence. He 
w^as bishop of Cyprus ; a situation more favourable for the ac- 



41 



quisition of correct knowledge concerning the Jewish Scriptures, 
than the dioceses of Augustin and other western bishops. Dr. 
Lardner says he thrice enumerates the books of the Old Testa- 
ment. " The Catalogue which I shall first observe," says he, 
{Cred. Gosp. Hist. vol. 8, p. 300,) " is in the fourth section of 
the book of Weights and Measures. He reckons the sacred 
books of the Old Testament to be in number twenty-seven, but 
reduced to twenty-two, the number of the letters of the Jewish 
alphabet. The books last mentioned are Esdras (meaning our 
Ezra and Nehemiah) and Esther, after which he adds (De 
Mens, and Pond. n. iv. p. 162) : ' For as for those two books, the 
Wisdom of Solomon^ and the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of 

Sirach, they likewise are useful, but not brought into 

the same number with the foregoing, and therefore are not placed 
in the ark of the covenant.' In the next section he observes, 
n. v. p. 163. A.,) that the epistles of Baruch were not re- 
ceived by the Jews, but only the Lamentations added to the 
book of Jeremiah. 

" In the twenty-third section of the same work the Jewish 
books are again enumerated, and put down in their Hebrew 
names ; where the three last mentioned are two books of Esdras 
and Esther. 

" A third Catalogue of the books of the Old Testament is 
in the Panarium, and not very far from the beginning of it. 
This I shall now transcribe at large. ' Now^ (iJ. 8, n. vi. T. 1, 
p. 19) the Jews had these Prophets, and books of Prophets, un- 
til the return from the Babylonish captivity : the first, Genesis ; 
the second, Exodus; the third, Leviticus; the fourth. Numbers ; 
the fifth, Deuteronomie ; the sixth, the book of Joshua, the son 
of Nun ; the seventh, the book of Judges ; the eighth, the book 
of Ruth ; the ninth, the book of Job ; the tenth, the Psalter ; the 
eleventh, the Proverbs of Solomon ; the twelfth, the Ecclesias- 
tes ; the thirteenth, the Song of Songs ; the fourteenth, the first 
book of the Kingdoms ; the fifteenth, the second book of the 
Kingdoms; the sixteenth, the third book of the Kingdoms ; the 



42 



seventeenth, the fourth book of the Kingdoms ; the eighteenth, 
the first book of the Remains ; the nineteenth, the second book 
of the Remains ; the twentieth, the book of the Twelve Pro- 
phets ; the twenty-first, Isaiah the Prophet ; the twenty-second, 
Jeremiah the Prophet, with the Lamentations, and the epistle of 
Baruch ; the twenty-third, Ezekiel the Prophet ; the tw^enty- 
fourth, Daniel the Prophet ; the twenty-fifth, the first book of 
Esdras ; the twenty-sixth, the second book ; the twenty-seventh, 
Esther. And these are the seven and twenty books, which were 
given by God to the Jews ; though they are reckoned only two 
and twenty, according to the number of the letters of the Hebrew 
Alphabet. For ten of the books that are double are reduced to 
five. There are also two other books among them which are 
doubted of [en amphileJdo), the Wisdom of Sirach, and of Sol- 
omon, beside certain other that are apocryphal." 

" His canon of the Old Testament," continues Lardner, 
" was much the same with that of the Jews. For he acknow- 
ledges that the book of Baruch was not received by them. The 
book of Wisdom, and the book of Ecclesiasticus, he considers 
as useful only, and not of authority, and therefore not admitted 
into the ark. Nor have the books of Maccabees, or Tobit, or 
Judith, any place in those Catalogues." No comment on this 
is necessary : it speaks plainly enough for itself. 

I should not omit here to say, that Eusebius of Ceesarea, the 
great ecclesiastical historian, (A. D. 315,) speaks with approba- 
tion {H.E. L. 3,c. ix. X. ; L. 4, c. xxvi./., and L. 6, c. xxv. in.) 
of the Catalogues of Jewish Scripture as given by Josephus, and 
Melito, and Origen ; all which have been cited above. 

We now come to the learned and industrious Jerome, 
{Praef, de omnih. Libr. V. T., torn. i. p. 317-322, Ed. Bened.,) 
as quoted by Lardner. (See Cred. Gosp. Hist., vol. x. p. 37- 
45.) After naming all the books of the Old Testament, which, 
having been transcribed above, I will not repeat, and which are 
precisely those contained in the Protestant Bible, he goes on — 
(I give Lardner's translation, page 40,) — " Thus there are in all 



43 



two and twenty books of the Old Law : that is, five books of 
Moses, eight of the Prophets, and nine of the Hagiographa. But 
some reckon Ruth and the Lamentations among the Hagio- 
grapha. So there will be four and twenty. 

" This prologue I write as a preface to all the books to be 
translated by me from the Hebrew into Latin ; that we may 
know that all the books which are not of this number are to be 
reckoned apocryphal. Therefore Wisdom, which is commonly 
called Solomon's, and the book of Jesus the son of Sirach, and 
Judith, and Tobit, and the Shepherd, are not in the canon. The 
first book of Maccabees I have found in Hebrew\ The second 
is Greek, as is evident from the style." " The Hebrews have 
five letters, which they write differently at the end from what 
they do in the beginning and middle of words. For which 
reason five of their books are reckoned double : as Samuel, 
the Kings, the Chronicles, Ezra, and Jeremiah with the La- 
mentations." 

" In the preface to his translation" says, Dr. Lardner, (p. 
42) of the books of Solomon from Hebrew, he again says, 
[Praef. in libr. Salom., tom. i. p. 938, 939,) that those three 
books only are his: the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes or the Preacher, 
and the Song of Sonets. There is also the book of Jesus the 
son of Sirach, and a pseudepigraphal, or falsely ascribed book, 
called the Wisdom of Solomon, the former of which I have 
seen in Hebrew, and called, not Ecclesiasticus, but the Parables; 
with which likewise have been joined Ecclesiastes and the Song 
of Songs, that the collection might the better resemble the 
books of Solomon, both in number and design. The second is 
not to be found at all among the Hebrews, and the style plainly 
shows it to be of Greek original. Some ancient writers say, 
it is a work Philo the Jew. ^s therefore the Church reads 
Judith, and Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not re^ 
ceive them among the canonical Scriptures, so likewise it may 
read these two books for the edif cation of the people, but not as 
of authority for proving any doctrines of religion. 



44 

This passage is remarkably clear and decisive against all 
but six of your one hundred and thirty-nine chapters, for the want 
of which, you say, your sect detest and ahhor the Bible pub- 
lished by the Bible Society. I have italicized the last sentence, 
and, that you may compare it with the original, I here tran- 
scribe Jerome's own language, as quoted by Dr. Lardner : — 
" Sicut ergo Judith, et Tobiae, et Macchabseorum, libros legit 
quidem Ecclesia, sed inter canonicas Scripturas non recipit : 
sic et hsec duo volumina legat od sedificationem plebis, non ad 
auctoritatem ecclesiasticorum dogmatum confirmandam." 

"In the preface to his translation of the books of Solomon,'^ 
says Dr. Lardner, " from the Greek version, called the version of 
the Seventy, he says, (Pr. in libr. Salom. juxta Septuag. Interp. 
tom. i. p. 1419,) I have translated the three books of Solo- 
mon, that is, the Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and the Canticles, from 
the ancient versioa of the Seventy. ... As for the book, called 
by many the Wisdom of Solomon, and Ecclesiasticus, which all 
know to be writ by Jesus the son of Sirach, I have forborne to 
translate them. For it was my intention, my friends [Paula 
and Eustochium'], to send you a correct edition of canonical 
Scriptures, and not to bestow labour upon others." 

The book of Baruch is not named in the foregoing extracts 
from Jerome, among those which he declares are 7iot canonical; 
but, " in the prologue to his translation of Jeremiah," says Lard- 
ner, " from Hebrew, he says, (tom. i. p. 554,) he does not 
translate the book of Baruch, because it was not in Hebrew, 
nor received by the Hebrews." Here is his language : — " Li- 
brum, autem Baruch, notarii ejus, qui apud Hebrasos nec legi- 
tur, nec habetur, preetermisimus." 

Thus, sir, is blown away, as with the breath of a giant, the 
remaining six of your one hundred and thirty-nine chapters, 
without which (Jerome and so many of the most learned of the 
Fathers to the contrary notwithstanding) your sect detest and 
abhor the Bible. But, again, (Cred. Gosp. Hist., vol. x. p. 45.) 
" In the prologue to his Commentary upon Jeremiah, he says, 



45 



(torn. iii. p. 526,; be does not intend to explain the book of 
Baruch, which, in the edition of the Seventy, is commonly 
joined with the prophecies of Jeremiah, but is not among the 
Hebrews. Nor shall betake any notice of the pseudepigraphal 
Epistle of Jereiniah.'" 

" None can forbear to observe," says Dr. Lardner, (vol. x, 
p. 77,) in reference to the Catalogues given by Jerome, " how 
clear these Catalogues of the Scriptures of the Old and New 
Testament are. For here is not the least notice taken of any 
other books, beside those which have been now particularly 
mentioned. It affords good reason to believe, that though there 
were doubts about some of these, there were no others which 
were esteemed to be of authority, or that made any considerable 
claim to be parts of canonical Scripture." 

The testimony of Jerome is more valuable, perhaps, than 
that of any, if not all, of the other Latin fathers, because his 
advantages of education in the languages w^ere superior to 
theirs, and his opportunities of obtaining correct information 
were far greater than those enjoyed by any belonging to the 
Western Churches. 

Rufinus, another of the most learned of the Latin fathers, 
about the year 397, has left a Catalogue, as set forth above. 
It is to be found^ in his " Explication of the Apostles' Creed." 
You may find the quotation made by Dr. Lardner, in his Cred. 
Gosp. Hist., vol. x. p. 184, beginning, ^' Hie igitur spiritus est, 
&c. (Rufn. in Symb. ap. Cyprian, in Jipp., p. 26, 27; et ap. 
Hieron., torn. v. p. 141, 142.) He begins thus : " This then is the 
Holy Spirit who in the Old Testament inspired the Law and the 
Prophets, and in the New the Gospels and Apostles. Where- 
fore the Apostle says, that all Scripftire is given by inspira- 
tion of God, and is profitable for doctrine. It will not, therefore, 
be improper to enumerate here the books of the New" and the 
Old Testament, which we find by the monuments of the fathers 
to have been delivered to the Churches as inspired by the Holy 



46 



Spirit. And of the Old Testament, in the first place, are," &c. 
Here follows the Catalogue just referred to above. This Cata- 
logue does not contain one of your one hundred and thirty-nine 
chapters; and in concluding which he remarks : " With these 
they conclude the number of the books of the Old Testament." 
Then follow the books of the New Testament just as we have 
them, after which he says : " These are the volumes which the 
Fathers have included in the canon, and out of which they 
would have us prove the doctrines of our faith." 

" However," he continues, " it ought to be observed, that 
there are also other books, which are not canonical, but 
have been called by our forefathers ecclesiastical : as the Wis- 
dom of Solomon 3 and another, which is called the Wisdom of 
the Son of Sirach, and among the Latins is called by the gen- 
eral name of Ecclesiasticus. By which title is denoted, not 
the author of the book, but the quality of the writing. In 
the same rank is the book of Tobit, and Judith, and the books 
of the Maccabees. In the New Testament is the book of the 
Shepherd, or of Hermas, which is called the Tw^o Ways, or the 
Judgment of Peter. All which they would have to be read 
in the Churches, but not to be alleged by way of authority, for 
proving articles of faith. ( Quce omnia legi quidem. in ecclesiis 
voluerunt, non tamen proferri ad auctoritatem ex his fdei con- 
Jirmandam.) Other Scriptures they called apocryphal, which 
they would not have to be read in the Churches. 

" These things I have thought proper to put down here, as 
received from our ancestors, for the information of those who 
are learning the first elements of the Church and the faith ; 
that they may know from what fountains they ought to fetch 
the word of God." 

Such is the testimony of Rufinus, who, you know, w^as one 
of the most distinguished men, for learning and talents, in the 
Latin Church. For the foregoing translation, see Lardner^s 
Cred. Gosp. Hist. vol. 10, p. 187. 



47 



Dr. Lardner (same vol. p. 189) observes, — " This Catalogue 
plainly shows, what books of the Old and New Testaments were 
of authority with Christians : and that, when other books were 
quoted by them, it was for illustration only, and not as decisive 
in matters of controversy, or by w^ay of authority." He adds, 
"And the testimony of Rufin is very valuable. He was a 
learned man, well acquainted both with the Greek and Latin 
writers of the Church. And he had travelled. He was born 
in the Western part of the Empire. But was also acquainted 
with the Churches in Egypt and Palestine, where he had resided 
a good while." 

That is not to be reckoned of authority, says Augustin, 
which is not alleged from the Law, or the Prophet, or the 
Psalm, or the Apostle, or the Gospel.— jE;?. 105, cap. 1, n. 2. 
In another place, De Civ. Dei, L. 17, cap. 24, he says : — "Mala- 
chi, Haggai, Zacharie, and Ezra, are the last which are re- 
ceived into the canon by the unbelieving Jews." This is an 
admission that your one hundred and thirty-nine chapters were 
not in the Jewish canon, and were not reckoned by him as 
hooks of authority, for none will contend that they, or any of 
them, belong to either the Lavj, or the Prophet, or the Psalm, 
It can be shown from another place that Augustin did not thus 
rank them. 

Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, A. D. 398, one of 
the most learned and eloquent of the Greek fathers, is, I believe, 
one of your favourite writers. I will^not transcribe the names 
of the books given in his proem, or the Synopsis ascribed to 
him, because these Catalogues are imperfect. Neither of us 
would be willing to receive them, for, whilst he says nothing of 
the Maccabees or Baruch, he omits some of the books always 
claimed by the Jews as canonical. But, it is observed by 
Lardner, vol. 10, p. 310," That from Chrysostom's other works, 
universally allowed to be genuine, it is apparent, that he received 
no books of the Old Testament as of authority, beside those 
received by the Jews." " His manner of quoting those books, 



48 



which were not received by the Jews, farther shows this. 
When he quotes Sirach or Ecclesiasticus, it is thus : So says 
one of our wise men : a certain wise man : a certain wise man 
reasons, or advises, and the like." " He quotes the books of 
Wisdom and Tobit exactly in the same manner." " And he 
says, (in Gen. Horn. 4, T. 4, p. 25, 26,) that all the books of 
the Old Testament were originally writ in Hebrew, and were 
translated from thence into Greek. Which must be understood 
of the Jewish canon. For most of the other books, generally 
called apocryphal by Protestants, were writ in Greek." And, 
at page 389, same volume, he quotes from Chrysostom (in Ps. 
xliv. T. 5, p. 160, C.) as follows: — "The Jews, our enemies, 
keep the Scriptures for us ; or are our librarians. The testi- 
mony of an enemy is always reckoned of great force. The 
prophecies of the Old Testament, of which w^e make so good 
use, are derived to us from those who crucified the Lord Jesus. 
No man therefore can say, that the books of the Old Testament 
have been forged by us." 

Gregory Nazianzen, A. D. 370, {Carm, 33. T. 2, p. 98,) ^ 

says," Meditate and discourse much on the word of God 

,But as there are many falsely ascribed writings, tending to 
deceive, accept, my friend, this certain number." He then 
names every book of the Old Testament precisely as we find 
them in the Bible published by the Bible Society, with the ex- 
ception of the book of Esther, which is not named. Not a 
single one of the books containing your one hundred and thirty- 
nine chapters is named at all by him. Gregory Nazianzen 
had excellent opportunities to obtain correct information on this 
subject. He w^as the son, yoa know, of the bishop of Nazian- 
zen in Cappadocia, born in the year 328 — only three years 
after the famous Council of Nice— and studied at Csesarea, Alex- 
andria, and Athens. He was held in such high esteem for his 
theological and other attainments, that Theodosius, the Emperor, 
raised him to the archiepiscopal throne of Constantinople, a sta- 
tion which at that time, you know, but 1 suppose will not admit, 



49 



was equal in dignity and^ authority, to that of the bishop of 
Rome. He soon, however, resigned his high office, and spent 
the remainder of his days in retirement and literary pursuits. 
After giving his Catalogue he observes, " which make twenty- 
two books, according to the number of the Hebrew letters," and 
adds, in conclusion,—" If there are any besides, they are not 
among the genuine.'' (See Lardner, vol. ii. p. 132.) 

Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, A. D. 370, (^mphil. ad 
Seleuc. p. 126, ad Combef. Paris, 1644, et. ap. Greg. JYaz., T. 
2. pp. 194, 195,) after recommending the reading of the Scrip- 
tures of the did and New Testament, as fitted to teach men vir- 
tue and the right worship of God, and cautioning his friend 
against spurious and falsely ascribed writings, even though they 
have in them some appearance of truth, goes on and names the 
divinely inspired books, which are precisely those contained in 
the Bible issued by the Bible Society ; and in conclusion he 
says — "Let this be the most certain canon of the divinely 
inspired Scriptures." (See Lardner, \o\. ii. p. 146-148.) 

I feel confident that you properly respect the testimony of 
this writer, and that you venerate his memory as highly as 1 do. 
Few, perhaps, have more richly merited the highest honor 
which holy mother church could bestow on a faithful and zeal- 
ous son, (though I am not aware that it has been awarded him,) 
for, to a skilful device of his, evincing great knowledge of hu- 
man nature, more than to any other circumstance, was she 
indebted for the total extirpation of Arianism, Eunomianism, 
Macedonianism, and all the other various heretical isms of the 
day. The story is told by several early writers, and, doubtless, 
you well remember it. The results were too happy and glori- 
ous to the Church for their first cause ever to be effaced from 
the memory of the faithful. Amphilochius had petitioned the 
Emperor, without success, to prohibit the Arians from assembling 
together for the purpose of worshipping God according to the 
dictates of their consciences. They were so contumelious as 
to continue their meetings according to their custom, and to 

4 



50 



conduct their services in a manner different from that of 
Amphilochius's party, which had but recently gained the ascen- 
dency. Having occasion to visit the palace, he made due obei- 
sance to Theodosius, but took little notice of his son Arcadius, 
who was seated on a throne by his side, and had lately received 
from his father the title and honors of Augustus. The Emperor 
observed the neglect,— but ascribing it to accident, reminded 
the bishop of the omission, who replied that he had paid respect 
to him and that was enough. The Enriperor was much dis- 
pleased, and said a slight passed upon his son was an indignity 
to himself, and forthwith commanded him to be driven from his 
presence. " But w^hile the guards were forcing him to the door, 
the dexterous polemic had time to execute his design, by ex- 
claiming with a loud voice, ' Such is the treatment, Empe- 
ror ! which the King of Heaven has prepared for those impious 
men, who affect to worship the Father, but refuse to acknow- 
ledge the equal majesty of the divine Son.' The sympathies 
of the father were already roused, and this argument struck 
home upon the pride and dignity of the imperial station. He 
could not help seeing the force, beauty, and justness of the com- 
parison. He swayed the sceptre of mighty Rome. The King 
of Heaven that only of the Universe. And, as a king, the 
latter, he imagined, must possess passions and feelings like his 
own. His order was instantly countermanded. He embraced 
the bishop of Iconium ; and the Church soon had the happiness 
to see the heretics, by virtue of imperial edicts, visited with all 
the variety of inflictions which those out of the pale have always 
been so unreasonable as to style cruel persecutions. If for this, 
Theodosius, as it is said, obtained the appellation of Magnus, 
surely Amphilochius merited that of »S'a?zdw5. What a striking 
example their characters afford of devotion to the cause of the 
Prince of Peace ! who came into the world " not to destroy 
men's lives, but to save them." 

Theodoret, (A. D. 423) a celebrated father, and an ecclesi- 
siastical historian of credit, gives his testimony in favor of the 



51 



Jewish canon, excluding the books which contain your sacred 
one hundred and thirty-nine chapters. 

Cosinas of Alexandria (A. D. 535) also testifies to the Jew- 
ish canon, excluding the one hundred and thirty-nine chapters. 

Gregory I., Bishop of Rome, A. D. 590, called the Grea^, ac- 
knowledged the Jewish canon to be the true can; n of the Old 
Testament. " In all Gregory's w^orks," says Dr. Lardner, vol. 
xiii. p. 346, " there is very little notice taken of the books of 
the Maccabees. In the one place, where the first of these books 
is mentioned, he quotes it only as a useful book, and makes a 
kind of apology for quoting a book, which, as he says, was not 
canonical:' {In Job, L. 19, C. 22, al. 13, p. 622, A. B.) 

Lf^ontius (A. D. 610), an eminent advocate at Constanti- 
nople, afterwards a monk in Palestine, says — as quoted by Lard- 
ner, vol. xiii. p. 379 — " The books received by the Church are 
the books of the ancient and of the new Scriptures. The ancient 
Scripture is that writ before the coming of Christ, the new, since. 
Of the ancient Scripture there are two and twenty books : some 
historical, some prophetical, some moral and poetical." He 
then proceeds with the names of those twenty-two books, ac- 
cording to these divisions, and makes out, with the exception of 
the book of Esther, the Jewish canon exactly, and which is re- 
ceived and published by the Bible Society. (See Leont. Advo- 
cat. Byzant. de Sectis. act 2, ap. Bib, PP. Paris, 1644, T. xi. p. 
496. . . . 498. Conf. Bib. PP. Lugdun, T. 9, p. 662, 663.) 

John Damascen, A. D. 730, a celebrated writer,— author of 
the first System of Christian Theology in the Eastern Church, 
and at last a monk in a convent near Jerusalem, gives a Cata- 
logue of the books of the Old Testament received by the Church, 
w^hich is the same as that of Epiphanius, already transcribed 
above, and which agrees also with that of Melito. Your one 
hundred and thirty- nine chapters are entirely excluded. He 
mentions two of the books which contain a portion of them in 
a secondary sense, viz. Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus — the others 
he does not even name. 



52 



CoteleriuSj a Frenchman of great learning — especially in the 
Greek and Hebrew languages — who flourished in the seven- 
teenth century, has left a stubometrie (or catalogue) of the 
sacred books, with the number of verses in each book, which 
entirely omits the books of Wisdom, Maccabees, Esther, Judith, 
Tobit, and Ecclesiasticus. 

But, it becomes necessary that I should bring my letter, 
which is already swollen much beyond my anticipations, to a 
close, and while the subject is yet far from being exhausted. 
Nevertheless, I am unwilling to dismiss it without adding some 
evidence which I have omitted above, respecting the authenticity 
of those books and parts of books, claimed by the Council of 
Trent to be sacred Scripture — the word of God — which are not 
contained in the Jewish canon or the Bible issued by the Bible 
Society. 

THE TESTIMONY OF CALMET. 

The hook of Wisdom. " The original of this work is in 
Greek ; and it does not appear that it w'as ever extant in He- 
brew, notwithstanding what some have thought." " The Jew- 
ish authors had some knowledge of him (i. e. the writer) and 
have quoted him ; but what they cite from him is always taken 
from the Greek. He always quotes Scripture, according to the 
Septuagint,even when they depart from the Hebrew ; which is a 
proof that this book was written originally in Greek." " The 
author of this book is unknown. Some ascribe it to Solomon, 
and imagine that he wrote it in Hebrew," &c. " But if this 
book really belongs to this prince, how comes it that the Jews 
never admitted it as canonical 1 How comes it not to be found 
in the Hebrew ? That no one has ever seen it in this language ? 
That the translator says nothing of it, and that the style shows 
no tokens of this pretended original ?" " Austin acknowledges 
that learned men are of opinion it is not Solomon's." " The 
Jews never reckoned the book of Wisdom as canonical : several 
of the Fathers and Churches rejected it from their canon." 



53 



Ecclesiasticus. ^' The Greeks call it, The Wisdom of Jesus 
the Son of Sirach" " Some of the ancients ascribed this work 
to Solomon, but the author is much more modern than So-o- 
mon, and speaks of several persons who lived after that prince.''' 
" The interpreter of it out of Syriac or Hebrew, into Greek, 
says, that his grandfather Jesus composed it in Hebrew." "This 
Jesus the son of Sirach lived long after the captivity, and since 
the monarchy of the Ptolemies in Egypt. We do not know ex- 
actly when the author of this book lived." " We have it as the 
old Fathers cited it, in very barbarous Latin. The admittance 
of this book into the canon, and w^hether it ever had been 
placed there, has been disputed. In several old catalogues of 
canonical books, we do not find this. Jerome says, the Church 
receives it for edification, but not to authorize any point of 
doctrme." 

Judith. " Great difficulties embarrass us in w^hat manner 
soever we understand it, and in what time soever w^e place it." 
" To remove all difficulties, and answer perfectly all objections 
which may be formed against this story, seems impossible." 
"The opinion which places the history of Judith after the cap- 
tivity of Babylon, is founded principally on the authority of the 
Greek version. This translation is certainly very ancient. The 
Italic version, w^hich was the only one in use among the Latins 
before St. Jerome, and the Syriac, were both made from it. It 
may pass for an original, there being nothing more ancient and 
authentic ; for it is dubious whether St. Jerome's Chaldee w^ere 
the original text of this work." " Eusebius places the history 
of the transaction in the reign of Cambyses, Syncellus in that of 
Xerxes, Sulpitius Severus in that of Ochus, others under Anti- 
ochus Epiphanes, and in the time of the Maccabees." " Wheth- 
er the book of Judith be authentic and canonical, has been very 
much disputed. There are an hundred difficulties concerning 
the je -sons and circumstances of this history." The author 
of the book of Judith is unknow^n." " The Jews in Oiigen's 
time, had the history of Judith in Hebrew j i. e., they might have 



54 



it probably in Chaldee, which is often confounded with Hebrew. 
St. Jerome says, that in his time they read it in Chaldee, as 
among the Hagiographa. Sebastian Munster thinks, that the 
Jews of Constantinople have it at present in that language. 
But hitherto we have seen no part of Judith printed in it. The 
Sjriac version which we have, is from the Greek, but from some 
copy more correct than that we have at present. St. Jerome 
made his Latin version from the Chaldee, and this translation is 
so different from the Greek, that no one can think they both 
came from the same original. St. Jerome complains very much 
of the variety observable among the Latin copies of his time, 
and we may be easily convinced that his complaints were just, 
by comparing the several fragments of those translations, which 
have been handed down to us, and the citations from them in 
the fathers." 

Tobias [Tobit). "It is not doubted but that the original 
of this work w^as either in Hebrew or Chaldee, though it cannot 
now be found." " The book of Tobit not being received into 
the canon of the Jews, was not admitted into that of the ancient 
Christian authors ; Jerome does not register it among the sacred 
books. Some moderns have spoken of it with very little respect, 
Paul Faquis has pretended, that it did not contain a true history, 
but a pious fiction," &c. " We are assured that the Jews had 
always a great regard for this book. Origen, in his epistl? to 
Africanus, says, that they read this work, but place it among 
their apocryphal writings. Jerome acknowledges that though 
they did not receive it into their canon, yet they admitted it 
among their Hagiographa." " Several of the ancient Fathers 
admitted this book as canonical." 

Baruch, " book of, in the Apocrypha, is not extant in He- 
brew, but in Greek only. The Jews, among whom it is a stand- 
ing rule to receive no books into the canon but what are written 
in their language, exclude Baruch. Jerome speaks of this book 
in a manner which shows that he did not esteem it canonical. 
He says (Pragf. in Exposit. Jerem.) he did not think proper to 



55 



comment on Baruch (which in the Seventy is joined with Jere- 
miah), because it was not read among the Hebrews, and con- 
tains an epistle, which falsely baars the name of Jeremiah. 
Elsewhere he says he did not translate it, as he had done Jer- 
emiah, because it was not in Hebrew, and the Jews did not 
admit it into the canon. We do not find Baruch in the ancient 
Catalogues of the Scriptures, cited by the Fathers and Councils. 
Protestants, and even some Catholic writers exclude it from the 
Canonical books. The Council of Trent admitted it, with others 
of the apocryphal writings." 

Maccabees. " There are four books of the Maccabees, of 
which the two first are canonical, and the other two apocryphal, 
in the Church of Rome." " The first book of the Maccabees 
was written originally in Hebrew or in Syriac. The style and 
turn of expression prove this, as well as the title mentioned by 
Origen." " It is probable this book might be composed from 
pubhc memoirs, kept by the Jews, of remarkable occurrences 
among them. Judas Maccabeus made a collection of them, and 
this first book towards the conclusion refers to the memoirs of 
Johannes Hircanus, (1 Mace. 16, ult.,) which has occasioned 
some to believe, that Johannes Hircanus might be the author." 
" The author is unknown, and he must have lived after the 
pontificate of Johannes Hircanus, because he quotes the me- 
moirs of his government." The history contained in this book 
is brought down to about 135 years before Christ. " The 
second book of the Maccabees is an abridgment of a larger 
work, composed by one Jason, which contained the history of 
the persecutions of Epiphanes and Eupator against the Jews. 
The author of this abridgment is not known, and the entire 
work of Jason is not extant. They were both Greeks." 

There is reason to believe that this book was composed about 
the year of the world 3880, and under the pontificate of Hirca- 
nus." Concerning the third book he l emarks: " Athanasius, in 
his Synopsis, and Nicephorus, at the end of his Chronology, put 
this in the number of controverted books, as lodl as the two 



56 



first hooks of the Maccabees.''^ Calraet offers nothing in proof 
that either of these books ever belonged to the Jewish canon, 
or was acknowledged to be canonical by the ancient Christian 
writers ; unless the opinion that they were written in Hebrew, 
or in Syriac, may be so considered. In which case, the books 
of Enoch, the wars of the Lord, and many others, have equal 
claims. 

Susanna — whose history your Bible makes the book of 
Daniel contain. " This history is not extant in the Hebrew of 
Daniel, but only in the (apocryphal) Greek. Many have dis- 
puted its canonicalness. Julius Africanus wrote against the 
truth of this history ; but Origen wrote a defence of it. And 
even Jerome, who in some places is not favourable to it, and 
censures it as a mere fable, in other places says, that not only 
the Greeks and Latins, but also the Syrians and Egyptians re- 
ceived it as Scripture." But what is the testimony of these 
people when weighed against that of the Jews themselves, who 
never acknowledged it to be a part of their Sacred Scriptures 
or knew of its existence in the Hebrew language ? 

I do not perceive that Calmet has any thing to say in de- 
fence of the six chapters added to Esther, which your Church 
has adopted, or of the Song of the Three Children, or of the 
story of Bel and the Dragon, added to Daniel. I hope you 
will bear in mind, that Calmet — the witness just examined — 
was of your sect. 



TESTIMONY OF THE FATHEKS, AS ADDUCED BY DOCT. LARDNER. 

Africanus. Eusebius, in his Ecclesiastical History (L. 6, 
cap. 31,) says, that Africanus, in a letter to Origen, suspects 
the history of Susanna in the book of Daniel to be spurious 
and a forgery ; and Jerome, (De Viv. 111. cap. 63,) speaking of 
that same letter, remarks, that Africanus says the History of 
Susanna is not to be found in Hebrew, nor is it agreeable to the 



57 



Hebrew etymology. Africanus flourished about the year A. 
D. 220. 

Origen. Having quoted a text from Tobit, he adds : — " But 
because the Jews reject the book of Tohit as not canonical^ I 
shall take a passage out of the first book of the Kings." In 
another place (Ep. ad Afric. § 13, p. 26, D.) he says, — ^' The 
Jews do not use Tobit, nor Judith. Nor have they them at all 
in Hebrew among their apocryphal books : but the churches 
make use of Tobit." It is manifest from the first quotation 
here, that Origen did not consider Tobit of authority equal with 
those books admitted to be canonical by the Jews ; and it may 
be inferred, that the churches, which he says used it, held it in 
no higher estimation. Respecting the Maccabees he expressly 
says, [Apud. Eus. L. 6. cap. 25, p. 226, B.,) as quoted by Eu- 
sebius in his Ecclesiastical History, that they are not a part of 
the Jewish Canonical Scriptures. And although he speaks of 
Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, &c., as hooks of Scripture that pleased 
the common -people, he nowhere affirms them to be canonical. 
He wrote no commentaries, and preached no homilies upon 
any of them. 

Jerome. In his preface to his translation of Daniel, (T. i. p. 
990,) " he assures us, that the Jews have not in their copies of 
the book of Daniel the Story of Susanna, nor the Song of the 
Three Children in the furnace, nor the fables of Bel and the 
Dragon : and that he had met with a Jewish master, w^ho 
criticised all those things, and ridiculed Christians for paying so 
much regard to them." " He translated Tobit and Judith from 
Chaldee into Latin, at the desire of some of his friends. But 
in the preface to each he brands them as apocryphal, and not 
received by the Jews." " Jerome never translated Wisdom? 
nor Ecclesiasticus, nor the books of Maccabees." He rejects 
Baruch, and the Epistle of Jeremiah, and the Song of the Three 
Children in the furnace, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, 
and the third and fourth books of Ezra. 

Such copious extracts have already been made in the fore- 



58 



going pages, from Jerome, in condemnation of the books and 
chapters in question, that I forbear to draw upon him any farther. 

Aucrustin. I cannot obtain much from this Father against 
those books. Indeed he includes them all in his Catalogue as 
canonical. But I cannot forbear to state here the argument 
which seems to have decided him so to class them. It was the 
same which now constrains you to acknowledge and receive 
them as a part of the w'ritten word of God : namely, the 
authority of the Church. I will give you Dr. Lardner's own 
remarks (vol. 10, p. 212) : " Augustin says, that Wisdom and 
Ecclesiasticus ought to he reckoned amojig prophetical books, 
hecaitse they had been received into authority. But there is no 
force in that observation. The right observation in such a case 
as this is : since they were not writ by prophets, they ought not 
to be received into authority ; and it is generally or universally 
allowed, and by Augustin himself, that no writings but those 
of prophets ought to be esteemed a part of the Sacred Scrip- 
tures of the Old Testament. And I suppose it must have ap- 
peared from the works of ancient Christian writers, which we 
have hitherto examined, that though they sometimes quote 
other books by w^ay of illustration, as they also do Heathen 
writings, yet they had a supreme regard for the Jewish canon, 
or those books which were received by the Jewish people as 
sacred and divine. I think likewise that Rufin and Jerome, 
who w^ere a little older than Augustin, must be allowed to bear 
a right testimony, and to declare truly what was the sentiment 
of most Christian churches, when they say, that the Wisdom of 
Solomon, Ecchsia?ticiis, Tohit, Judith , and the Maccabees, were 
indeed allowed to be publicly read, but that nevertheless they 
were not canonical, and that no doctrine of religion may be 
proved by their authority.''^ Augustin says (De Civ. Dei. L. 18, 
c. 36): the Jews had no prophets after their return from the 
Babylonish captivity. " For which reason, as he also observes, 
the books of Maccabees were not recti ved in the Jewish 
canon, these books containing the history of things in later 



59 



times." (See Lardner's Cred. Gosp. Hist.yol. x. pp. 215, 216.) 
He farther says, that the learned are satisfied the books of 
Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus are not Solomon's, and that " they 
were chiefly respected by the Christians who lived in the 
Western part of the world." (See same, p. 218.) He also par- 
ticularly owns, in the same work cited above, L. 18, ch. 26, 
that the book of Judith was not in the Jewish canon. He has 
many expressions which go to show that none of the books in 
question were of unquestioned authority, or sufficient to decide 
a point in dispute. " In his Retractions (L. i. cap. 10) he owns 
his mistake in quoting the book of Ecclesiasticus as propheti- 
cal." Speaking of the Jews not receiving the Scripture of the 
Maccabees, he adds : " But it is received by the Church not 
unprofitably, if it be read and heard soberly, especially for the 
sake of the history of the Maccabees, who suffered so much 
from the hand of persecutors for the sake of the law of God." 
" So that, in the end," says Lardner, " Augustin differs not 
from Jerome and Rufin, but is of the same opinion with them : 
that these books are received as useful, but not as of authority, 
so that any doctrine may be proved by them." 

" Eusebius, bishop of Ceesarea, (and who was also a mem- 
ber of the Council of Nice, A. D. 325,) Apollinarius, and sev- 
eral others — according to Jerome, in his preface to his trans- 
lation of the book of Daniel, (torn. iii. p. 1074,) — "rejected the 
stories of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, as not extant in He- 
brew. And therefore Eusebe and Apollinarius, in their answers 
to Porphyrie, insisted that they were not obliged to take no- 
tice of his objections against Daniel, founded upon a supposition 
that they were a part of his book ; when, indeed, they ivere of 
no authority, nor a part of sacred Scripture^ (See Cred. Gosp. 
Hist., vol. ii. pp. 70, 71.) 

TESTIMONY OF JEWISH WRITERS, 

Which I take from Alexander's " Canon of the Old and 
JYew Testament ascertained,''^ &c., pp. 45, 46, 



60 



" Rabbi Azariah, speaking of these books, says, ' They are 
received by Christians, not by us.' 

R. Gedaliah, after giving a Catalogue of the books of the 
Okl Testament, with some account of their authors, adds these 
words: ' It is worth while to know, that the nations of the world 
wrote many other books, which are indeed in the systems of 
sacred books, but are not in our hands.' To which he adds, 
'■ They say that some of these are found in the Chaldee, some 
in the Arabic, and some in the Greek language.' 

" R. AzARiAH ascribes the book called the Wisdom of Solo- 
mon to Philo; and R. Gedaliah, in speaking of the same 
book, says, ' that if Solomon ever w^rote it, it must have been in 
the Syriac language, to send it to some of the kings in the re- 
motest parts of the East.' ' But,' says he, 'Ezra put his hand 
only to those books which were published by the prophets, un- 
der the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and written in the sacred 
language; and our wise men prudently and deliberately re- 
solved to sanction none but such as were established and con- 
firmed by him.' ' This book,' says he, ' the Gentiles (i. e. 
Christians) have added to their Bible.' 

" Their wise men," says Buxtorf, " pronounced this book 
to be apocryphal." 

" The book called Ecclesiasticus, said to be written by the 
son of Sirach, is expressly numbered among apocryphal books 
in the Talmud. ' In the book of the son of Sirach, it is for- 
bidden to read.' 

" Manasseh Ben Israel has this observation : 'Those things 
which are alleged from a verse in Ecclesiasticus are nothing to 
the purpose, because that is an apocryphal book.' Another 
of their writers says, ' That book of the son of Sirach is added 
to our twenty -four sacred books, by the Romans.' " This book, 
also, they call extraneous, which some of the Jews prohibit to be 
read. With what face then can the Romanists pretend, that 
this book was added to the canon not long before the time of 
Josephus ? 



61 



" Baruch," says one of their learned men, " is received by 
Christians, (i. e. Romanists,) but not by us." 

" Of ToBiT," it is said in Zemach David, " know, then, that 
this book of Tobias is one of those which Christians join with 
theHagiographa." AUttle afterwards it is said, " Know, then, 
that Tobit, which is among us in the Hebrew tongue, was trans- 
lated from Latin into Hebrew by Sebastian Munster." The 
same writer affirms of the history of Susanna, " That it is re- 
ceived by Christians, but not by us." 

It is remarkable that not one of these books is even so 
much as once named or quoted by the New Testament writers, 
whilst other apocryphal books are referred to, and even some 
of the heathen poets. 

I have brought forward the evidence of early Christian 
writers, not that I esteem it of any authority whatever in set- 
thng the canon of the Old Testament ; for, if all the Christian 
writers, since the days of the Apostles, were agreed in support 
of your one hundred and thirty-nine chapters, it would weigh 
nothing against the testimony of the Jew^s themselves ; but sim- 
ply to show what books were received as canonical, and what 
not, by the Primitive Churches, and by the best informed indi- 
viduals connected with them. I am aware that you have Am- 
brose and others on your side, mostly of the Western Churches j 
men of not much learning, and enjoying but few opportunities 
of obtaining correct information. As far as I have been able to 
learn, the testimony in favor of the authenticity of those one 
hundred and thirty-nine chapters, is not to be compared with 
that which I have adduced against it, though far from being all 
that is available. 

My design was, to show that your one hundred and thirty- 
nine chapters are not left out of the Bible published by the Bible 
Society, without good reason ; and I flatter myself I have done 
more. 1 think it will appear to any unprejudiced person who 
will read the foregoing with care, that your Church has acted 
unwisely, unreasonably, and unchristian-like, in declaring them 



62 



authentic. I cannot condemn you for defending then:i, so long 
as you adhere to your present avocation, and to the order of 
which you are a aiember. You could not do otherwise consist- 
ently with your oath of obedience to your sovereign in Europe. 
But I confess, sir, I am at a loss to see, how these obligations 
should make it necessary for you and your sect to denounce the 
whole of the Bible of the Bible Society, notwithstanding it is 
composed of books received by you in common with all Pro- 
testants. How, sir, can it be possible that such a Bible can be 
worthy of the detestation and abhorrence of any bearing the 
Christian name, merely because certain books, purporting to 
belong to the Old Testament, are omitted, for the reason tiiat 
they never formed a part of that Scripture which the Saviour 
and his Apostles have designated as the word of God, and 
which the Jews — the conservators of that Old Testament — 
never admitted or knew to form a part thereof? 

I did not understand you to make any objection to the trans- 
lation, excepting in one or two instances. But you did say, 
that Protestants had corrupted and adulterated the Bible. Now, 
for my own part, I know of but one or two passages that are 
believed by any to be corruptions, and it is well known to every 
scholar that they had their origin before the days of Luther. I 
know not who committed this outrage. I do not charge it to 
any mem.ber of your sect, notwithstanding you claim for the 
Church of Rome the exclusive merit of preserving that very 
Protestant Bible which now she detests and abhors. I am, how- 
ever, far from admitting the truth of this arrogation, (that Pro- 
testants are indebted solely to the Church of Rome for their 
Bible,) and hereafter will take occasion to prove it to be a vain 
boast. 

Enough, I think, has been said above, for you to determine 
with what justice you made the bold assertion, that those one 
hundred and thirty-nine chapters were received by all Christians 
as Holy Scripture for sixteen hundred years, till Luther started 
up and declared them uncanonical. 



63 



In your Lecture, the 17th of March, you observed, that you 
had pledged yourself to join any sect that would convince you 
that they are right. You said that you were after truth, that 
as an honest nrian you were bound to era brace it wherever it 
might be found ; and that it was your duty to investigate. This 
was said like an honest man, and a friend of the word of God, 
which is TRUTH, and I trust that your sheep received it as 
equally applicable to themselves 3 for, though as their shepherd 
you may lead them into green pastures, and by the still waters, 
would you then prohibit them from refreshing themselves with 
the pure waters, and feeding and ruminating at their own plea- 
sure ? Your remark was refreshing to me. But, alas ! it was 
only momentary ; for you added, that no man could convince 
you. This tallies badly with the rest of the remark ; because 
one who is confident that he cannot be convinced, can scarcely 
be persuaded to investigate. Nevertheless, permit me, in con- 
clusion, — and in return for your earnest appeal at the close of 
your last lecture to those who differ from you, to examine the 
subject with unbiassed minds,— allow me, I say, to return the 
compliment, and to entreat you, to lay aside your pride of opin- 
ion — shake off the thraldom of prejudice — break through the 
iron influence of early education — abandon your sophistical 
mode of reasoning, and return to common sense ; seek no longer 
victory only, but seek for truth, — abandon your fatal errors, 
which have ruined, not millions of individuals only, but whole 
nations ; which have desolated fruitful countries, and deluged 
the earth in blood. Cease to persuade men to believe the mon- 
strous doctrine that the Sovereign of the Universe has created a 
privileged order of men, to whose keeping they are bound to 
comm.it their souls and consciences. An order which aims at 
the subjugation of the world (these United States included) to 
the despotic sway of a single man. 

Sir, let me entreat you earnestl}', no longer to enteitain that 
shocking — not to say, sinful doctrine — that, if you be in error, 



64 

God himself is responsible for the consequences. It may afford 
you consolation while you live, and those who are committed 
to your charge. But, alas ! it is fraught with mischief. Tak- 
ing refuge here, all incentives to inquire whether they are in 
error or not, are uprooted and destroyed. They live and die 
in this false security, this fatal delusion ; and when, at the 
i great day of account, all shall appear before the judgment seat 

j of Christ, of what avail, against the charge of transgression of 

the law of God, will be your plea that the doctrines which you 
received from him had caused you to sin, and, therefore, he 
himself must be responsible ? Oh no, sir ; no. Responsibility 
implies a superior. But God has no superior. The Sovereign 
of the universe cannot be responsible. Rely upon it, sir, if we 
err in respect of our duty to God, the fault is our own, and we 
alone must answer for it. God has not written his laws, as 
you would have us to believe, like Draco and other tyrants of 
the earth, not to be understood, nor yet to mislead. It is con- 
trary both to reason and Scripture to suppose that the Supreme 
Being, who is the concentration of all the attributes of perfec- 
tion, would subject any creature, under severe penalties, to the 
observance of certain rules of action which he could not under- 
stand. Such a supposition w^ould outrage common sense, and 
be an indignity offered to the Most High. It is, then, demon- 
strably certain that he has prescribed no law respecting the 
duty of man which' is not fully within the comprehension of 
the weakest intellect. They who seek with diligence will 
surely find a clear revelation of all that is required of them. 
Some more, perhaps, and some less, according to our various 
abilities. But none will have occasion to complain that his 
duty to God and man is not clearly defined in the written word 
of God. Indeed, as much is declared in this same written word, 
and in terms which cannot be tortured into equivocalness or am- 
biguity. The way is so plain, says the w^ord of God, that 
the wayfaring man, though a fool, need not errf^ and the 

I 

I 



i 
I 



65 



law so dear and legible, that " he that runs may read.^' This 
would seem to preclude the possibility of error in him that 
seeks diligently for the truth, excepting such only as is pre- 
nneditated voluntarily. But he who neglects, in a matter so 
momentous, to use all the means in his power — to exert all the 
abihty which God has bestowed upon him, in the inquiry after 
truth ; who not only will not give ear to arguments against his 
prepossessions, but will not seek them — who will not make the 
written w^ord of God his study and delight — that person is cul- 
pably negligent ; stands condemned before God and all rational 
men ; has treated the kindness and offered mercies of his Hea- 
venly Father with contempt ; and having lived and died in 
error, whatever may have been his delusion, has no more 
reason to expect forgiveness than he who hid his lord's money, 
and defeated the purpose for which the deposit was made. 

Do not understand me to mean by this, that God will in no 
case pardon error. Oh, no ! God is love. He is full of loving- 
kindness and tender mercies. It cannot be believed that he will 
punish us for purely involuntary errors — if, indeed, such be 
possible respecting our duty as required by him. But let us re- 
member, that involuntary error can only be, after we have 
done all that we can to avoid it. If, after having laid aside 
every prejudice and partiality, we have examined the subject 
in all its bearings — sought and heard attentively all the argu- 
ments accessible to us, against as well as in favor, of our previ- 
ously formed opinions, and compared and weighed them in our 
unbiassed minds with an anxious desire for the truth — if after 
all this we can say in our conscience, as in the presence of 
God, " I sincerely believe such an opinion to be right, or such 
to be wrong," we may rest satisfied that God will not punish us 
if we should be in error — provided we have not been voluntarily 
so deluded as to suffer ourselves to be led thereby to transgress 
those fundamental laws which none of sane mind need misun- 
derstand, love to God and man, and to do to all as we w-ould 
they should do to us. God says he requires of us mercy, (kind- 

5 



66 



ness to one another,) and not sacrifice. " And what," says the 
prophet, " does the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and 
to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?" K our 
errors cause us to violate these holy precepts, we surely cannot 
escape condemnation, notwithstanding our own consciences ac- 
quit us ; unless our condition be so unfortunate that the will is 
not free ; and as we cannot be culpable in the sight of a just 
and holy Being, for what in us is really involuntary and un- 
avoidable, so neither can we merit reward from him for conduct 
ever so meritorious in the sight of men, which has been per- 
formed without reference to our responsibility to God. For 
instance — a man subjects a savage to slavery, and teaches him 
as the paramount law, perfect obedience to his master in all 
things. He informs him, that for every offence he will cer- 
tainly be whipped. For a certain offence he shall have six 
lashes ; for another a dozen ; for a third twenty ; for a fourth 
forty save one, and so on. That a strict account will be kept, 
and at the end of each month he shall receive the whole num- 
ber incurred, well laid on. But that, if he will do certain good 
deeds, this punishment shall be mitigated: thus— for every time 
he fasts a whole day, and gives his meals to the suffering poor, 
four lashes shall be remitted. For every time he sits up all 
night with a sick fellow-servant, a remission of three lashes. 
For every time he attends at church and receives the holy Eu- 
charist, a remission of five lashes. For every time he visits and 
administers to the widow and 'the fatherless in their affliction, a 
remission of ten lashes. For every time he repeats a certain 
prayer, twenty lashes, and so on. Now, we cannot help seeing 
how exceedingly religious and moral this fellow would be. But 
who will pretend that for all his observances he merits the 
favor and reward of Heaven? His motives are altogether inter- 
ested. He acts entirely from the fear of punishment and the hope 
of its remission. Love to God and man never induces a virtuous 
action, or inspires in him a religious thought. And how much 
worse it is for those, if there be any such, who live in a land of 



67 



gospel light, and of gospel liberty, and yet are actuated by no 
higher motives ! Who voluntarily surrender their freedom of 
will — all that can elevate them after this life above the brute, 
because it is all that can make them the proper subjects of 
reward or punishment — to the will of human beings like them- 
selves, instead of holding fast to their allegiance to the great 
King of kings, and looking to Jesus, the author and finisher of 
our faith. 

Cease, then, my dear sir, I beg you, to teach your people 
that error in them is innocent. No longer endeavor to persuade 
them to believe that, if found to have been wrong, you will 
stand between them and the judgment of God, and take upon 
yourself the penalties incurred by them. Sir, you cannot do it. 
God is not a man to punish unjustly. Your condemnation must, 
indeed, be dreadful ; but it can be no more than the righteous 
Judge of all the earth knows is due to your own offences. And 
if your people who are not incapable of knowing better, are 
found guilty, they must suffer each one for his own sin. " God 
will by no means clear them," says the law of God. He will 
not inflict judgment on one for the iniquity of another. " The 
soul that sinneth, the same shall die. The son shall not bear 
the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the ini- 
quity of the son : the justice of the just shall be upon him, and 
the wickedness of the wricked shall be upon him.^^ (Ezech. xviii. 
20.) I quote from your ow^n Bible. 

I have endeavored in these pages to prove that Protestants 
were justifiable in refusing to admit as canonical, the books of 
Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and the two 
Maccabees, — and the stories of Susanna and Bel and the Dra- 
gon, at the end of Daniel in your Douay Bible, all making up 
those one hundred and thirty-nine chapters which you consider 
to be Sacred Scripture, — and that the Bible Society was right 
in rejecting them altogether as uncanonical ; that their Bible 
contains the whole of the written word of God ; and, that your 
Church has added more than one hundred and forty-five chap- 
ters to the sacred canon of Scripture, which ought not to be 



68 



there, and consequently that your Bible is not the true one. If 
you can show any thing to the contrary, superior to what I 
have advanced in support of my positions, I shall be very glad to 
see it. 

In my next I will take a view of the comparative merits of 
the two Bibles, viz., that adopted by Protestants and that 
adopted, or made, if you please, by your sect. I will also con- 
trovert your assertions that Protestants are indebted for their 
Bible to the Roman Catholic Church alone ; that they could 
not know% but for that Church, that it is the inspired word of 
God ; that the Bible ought never to be read without the leave 
of the Church, nor at all by servants and children. And, if 
time and space permit, I will argue the two great points, — the 
right of private (or individual) interpretation, and the exclusive 
authority of the Church to interpret Sacred Scripture. 

I am aware that there are many w^ho disapprove of religious 
controversies, believing that the cause of Christian truth is in- 
jured rather than benefited thereby. I must take the liberty to 
differ with them. Truth is the same, as well in all the moral 
as in the physical sciences. It is indivisible ; and often lies so 
deep in obscurity as to be developed only by patient and labo- 
rious arguments on every side. Truth is never dimmed by fair 
and dispassionate argument. Sophistry and misrepresentation 
may becloud its glory for a season, but, like the sun when he 
has chased away the fogs of the morning, it will shine forth in 
the end with a more resplendent brightness. 

As this may, possibly, be read by some who disapprove of 
such discussions, I will, for their sake, conclude in the beautiful 
language of the Edinburgh Review for April, 1843 : 

" Let us never forget that Christianity was planted, and has 
grown up, in storms. Discussion is always favorable to it, and 
has ever been so. Let the wintry blast come. It will but scat- 
ter the sere leaves, and snap off the withered branches ; the 
giant tree will only strike its roots deeper into the soil, and in 
the coming spring-time put forth a richer foliage, and extend a 
more grateful shade." 



i 



I 



I 



I 

i 



i 



I 



t 



k1 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process, 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

FreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cr,anbern/ Township PA iBO^b 



